Jump to content

Talk:Statue of Liberty/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Freemasonry

Don't see much on their major role. Here is the pic of the bronze plaque with mason symbols hxxp://www.freemasonrywatch.org/pics/liberty-plaque.jpg

If the masons did indeed have a role, it wouldn't be far fetched to atleast put other subliminal or possible true meanings behind the statue. i.e. - not being the torch of freedom, but of the illuminati

The image link doesn't appear to work... so I'm not exactly seeing anything that supports a supposed link to the freemasons.-Kingpin1055 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

try http instead of hxxp on the url

Very well, whilst I'll ignore the fact there isn't anything in that image that actually shows it as being mounted to the statue's pedestal... But I don't expect there to have been much role by the Masons other then fund donation. -Kingpin1055 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Patina-clad"??

Can something be "clad" in a patina, as the article currently states? I guess it's metaphorical, but clad implies "clothing" something, hence it's use with armor and fabrics. Patina implies a finish that happens due to nature and time (or a finish that fakes this natural process). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.94.17 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can something be "clad" in a patina, as the article currently states? I guess it's metaphorical, but clad implies "clothing" something, hence it's use with armor and fabrics. Patina implies a finish that happens due to nature and time (or a finish that fakes this natural process) 210.1.105.89 (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

She was to be Black

Evidence and records (origional prints) now indicate that she was to be a Black. This has to be added to the article. Someone could do a through research and write something about it. Its really important to note it.

Do you mean she was to be a black person, or made with a black finish? boffy_b 19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know but the depictation of the statue,

Shows her to be originally in black. Lord Metroid 13:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to wonder very much about. The statue is made of copper that, exposed to air and humidity, kind of "rusts". First, copper oxidates to reddish Cu-I-oxide, then to black Cu-II-oxide. Finally, under the influence of volatile acids, the oxides turn to a mixture of greenish salts. You can observe this change on any corroding object made of copper. Compare Copper_oxide. Thus, the black color is just a inevitable transitional state

-- 193.96.240.2 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, that painting is no indication whatsoever. A number of early artistic interpretations made a number of mistakes, ranging from size and position of the statue in contrast to Manhattan Island and even one political satire that had an incorrect depiction of the statue's headgear. I don't think there's any credible evidence to support the theory she was 'meant to be black'.-Kingpin1055 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
She was black. The first gift was a black woman. Then when the U.S. sent her back (because she was black) they remade it and now sh'es white. The original black Statue is in Paris still. I saw it. The reaason she was supposed to be black was because during the war (uh...WW1????) when American liberators went to France, they were black men, so the French think of Americans as blacks. And another reason our ally isen't strong with them is cause we sent it back, that's kind of a diss. But I had no idea it was "funded" or that it was a "joint" effort. I just know that the one in our waters is white & the one in France is black. (76.169.116.43 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
the color of the picture ins't saying weither the color is to be white black or green Olulade 14:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it was necessarily suppose to be black. I think it was just an artist's rendering, because as you can see, the pedestal is also a different color. Not cause for any sort of "diss", I don't think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.198.228 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeings as the Statue was made decades before the first world war, I doubt that if it was to be a black person (which I highly doubt it was), it wouldn't be for this reason. The statue was originally black in hue, at least at the point when it was assembled in New York. It was only a few decades after when it turned green. If this is not included in the article then perhaps it should be ratified. ArdClose (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"As a Symbol for Truth" Section

Personally, I have never heard the statue of liberty used to signify someone telling the truth (as in the phrase "Cross my heart and hope to die" or "I swear to god"). This section does not cite it's source, where this has been heard, or anything else for that matter. Plus it sound stupid, not really something an adolescent would say. It sounds more of a small child's saying (no offense to small children). What do you say to removing this section? Dboyz-x.etown 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Szabadság Szobor

I am considering creating a page for Szabadság Szobor in Buda, Hungary. As that name translates to the Statue of Liberty and considering that English is supposed to be the rule for this Wikipedia, it would seem that a disambiguation page may eventually be necessary. Though at the moment it's no rush: I'm busy uploading images these days; not finding information and publishing brand new pages. --Thisisbossi 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos of the statue

I have uploaded several photos that I shot to Wikimedia on a page called Statue of Liberty. I will leave it to others to decide whether and how to use them here. Tysto 08:35, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Changed my mind and added my pic of Liberty against Manhattan in place of the existing one, which was low-res and pre-9/11. I also rewrote the section called "Closure" to be slightly more accurate and called it "Concern for Security." --Tysto 01:26, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
The pictures are great but can we drop some of the pics of the exterior and replace them with those of the interior? Seems it would a lot to the article as one can get exterior shots anyway. David Youngberg 03:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Climbing to the torch

I could only find one site that says that visitors can climb to the balcony of the torch (capacity 11 people). Is that true? AxelBoldt 23:54, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I believe it was once true. Due to a combination of protest demonstrations and/or concerns about the safety of the internal stairways, access to many parts of the interior statue became increasingly restricted during, I dunno, the seventies and eighties. Then it was closed down for an extended period of time while they did extensive refurbishing and rebuilding... and then after 9/11 all access has been restricted. Dpbsmith 16:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I took out the "One can also climb up to the balcony of the torch." line. That was true a very long time ago, but hasn't been for nearly a century. JerseyDevil 05:00 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
Actually, it would be very interesting to have a section on what areas of the statue were accessible when. Do you know the year when the balcony became inaccessible? And why? I'd love to a see a sentence to the effect that "from thus-and-such-year to thus-and-such year visitors could climb to the balcony of the torch (capacity 11 people)." Dpbsmith 22:33, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... Google, click click... several places, including the fairly respectable-looking americanparknetwork.com (all of which are phrased identically and hence are likely copied from a single common source) say:
"The 30-foot arm of Liberty traveled to Philadelphia in 1876 as well. For 50 cents, a visitor could climb a steel ladder to the balcony around the torch. A good deal of enthusiasm was generated for the project, since Liberty would be the first statue one could climb inside."
Maybe that was the only time/place at which the public could get to the torch balcony? Dpbsmith 22:33, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually people were able to go up into it after it was built. But the arm had become too weak and there were far too many visitors. Now no one is allowed up there because it does not meet code. It's only a thin bar of copper that seperates you from a 300+ foot drop. I have been to the Statue since it "reopened" - I use that in quotes because you are no longer able to go up into the Statue itself. --JerseyDevil 09:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The National Park Service site says only that the torch has been "closed to the public for many years." I paraphrased its information to make clear that the closing of the torch was unrelated to the post-9/11 security issues. JamesMLane 11:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My grandfather went up the torch in the 1920s. When I visited to the monument in the early 1990s, I was told that was about the time the practice was discontinued. The ranger said that one maintenance worker goes up once a month (if the winds are not too high) to clean the balcony of bird-related issues, and other employees could join him. Can't say if that is true today. — Eoghanacht talk 17:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This short article from Chicago Reader columnist Cecil Adams explains quite a lot. States that the torch was closed to the public by 1917. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_439.html BTW, hasn't anyone ever taken note of the fact that the Statue of Liberty (and it's inscription) is facing EUROPE -- NOT the Third World sh*tholes to the south and east....Richiestern 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Liberty3869.jpg

Image:Liberty3869.jpg is interesting, but it is not what one might expect to see. So the article should make mention of the image, its artist, its origins, its purpose, etc. Kingturtle 00:40 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

aw gee, i wasn't suggesting changing the image...just explaining it. Kingturtle 01:02 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Location of the Lazarus poem

I think that it's especially important to give a source when you are changing information that you think is erroneous that someone else has included.

A previous edit said that the Lazarus poem is engraved on the pedestal. Many people think this. I used to think so myself. Which is odd, because I've visited the statue. Perhaps it's because of editorial cartoons, perhaps because of Shelley's Ozymandias ("And on the pedestal these words appear?").

I was pretty sure this was wrong, but in correcting it I wanted to be sure that I was right.

As to where's the plaque, I found this trickier to determine than I expected. So, when I got the right answer, I thought it was important to cite my sources.

I'm going to tell this backwards, with the answer first.

http://www.nps.gov/stli/plaque/index.html is clear enough, and the main site, http://www.nps.gov/stli/prod02.htm is dated Jan 7th, 2004. The statement there was confirmed by the Park Service by email in response to a query I sent them.

Well, why was there any question? Two reasons.

One thing baffled me was this story, which is only in Google's cache at the moment. If this URL doesn't work, try a Google search on emma lazarus battery park

It's a news item dated May 12th, 2002 that states "Originally inscribed on a bronze plaque placed on the interior wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty monument in 1903, this plaque now sits within our very own Battery Park."

Since the museum and statue interior are currently closed to the public, I thought it was very possible that it had been moved to a location where people could see it. The plaque in Battery Park appears, however, to be a different plaque.

Meanwhile: the Wikipedia article had previously contained an external reference that was shown simply like this:

Unless you click on the "Historical Handbook" image, it's not obvious that this is a 1954 Historical Site handbook.

This page from that handbook http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/11/hh11n.htm states:

"1. Entrance to the base of the statue is through the high walls of old Fort Wood, through what was originally the fort's principal sally port. Its doors are 4 inches thick.

To the left of these heavy doors is a bronze tablet on which is inscribed the Emma Lazarus sonnet, The New Colossus, quoted on page 1."

So, I was pretty sure the poem wasn't "engraved on the pedestal," but was it really

  • in Battery Park
  • on the fort walls surrounding the statue
  • or on an interior wall in the museum within the statue?

The third, it seems--but after some discussion with [User:Lupo|Lupo] , who didn't understand why I was at pains to cite my source, I thought I'd better add this to the Talk page.

Hell of a good poem, anyway.

Naturally I'm curious about the 1954 statement. Was the plaque at one time on the fort walls surrounding the statue? Has it been moved? How many times? Dpbsmith 15:03, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Replicas

Smaller copies: there is, or used to be, a fairly large replica in Manhattan; it is or was an advertising display for a moving and storage company or something of the sort. I can't currently find any details. It's not a very good replica—is more of a pop-culture icon a la Zippy's "Muffler man"—but it is quite large, quite conspicuous, and certainly has confused even adult visitors. If anyone knows more about the "fake Statue of Liberty" in Manhattan it seems to me it would be worth a brief mention in the main article. Dpbsmith 16:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I found it--and added the material about the "Liberty Warehouse" replica. But I made the mistake of Googling on replica "Statue of Liberty" and... this could get out of hand. I had no idea how many replicas of the Statue there are. I'm going to pretend I didn't see most of them, but the item about the Boy Scouts of America replicas was just too good to pass up. Dpbsmith 21:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is also a small two-meter high(or a bit less?) replica in the Jardin du Luxembourg in the middle of the Quartier Latin in Paris (someone told me there was another one in the 20th district of the city but I have to check).

"Known as Liberty Island since the early 1900s

The name was changed from Bedloe's Island to Liberty Island in 1956. My authority for saying it was informally known as Liberty Island "since the early 1900's" is that Baedeker's United States (1893) refers to it only as "the Statue of Liberty on Bedloe's Island," but the Britannica 11th Edition (1911) refers to "Bedloes Island (sometimes called Liberty Island from the Bartholdi statue on it of Liberty Enlightening the World)" Dpbsmith 22:45, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the 1900s was a decade. I'm changing the article to refer to the early 20th century instead. LeRoi 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Current location and status of Liberty Warehouse replica

The Brooklyn Museum of Art has replied to my query:

February 10, 2004
Thank you for your interest in the Statue of Liberty sculpture in the Brooklyn Museum of Art collection. The piece is indeed at the Museum, but it is currently in storage awaiting treatment before it can be installed. Although we do plan to install the statue, we do not yet know when that will be.
Kevin Stayton
Chief Curator
Brooklyn Museum of Art
718-501-6250

Dpbsmith 21:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Smaller copies

i'm french and i'm not sure this is correct : A smaller-scale copy of the Statue of Liberty is placed in Paris, France, where it stands on an island in the river Seine, looking down the river, towards the Atlantic Ocean and hence towards its "larger sister" in New York. the seine does not go to the atlantic ocean, but in the english channel... or did i misunderstand something ???! ZeroJanvier 01:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Singer rumor

I moved this text here: It has been claimed that the statue was based upon Isabella Singer (wife of Isaac Singer of sewing machine fame). notice the use of the passive voice of non-attribution. Bertholdi's studio was in Paris, not a detail purveyors of tripe are aware of. Wetman 23:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for that text, but I believe there might be something to it. But don't have time to look into it now. And agree, burden of proof should be on the person who puts it into the article. Hmmm... Googling on "Isabella Singer" Statue of Liberty does turn up a bunch of hits, NOT all from Wikipedia or copies, but I have to say they're not very convincing. Save it for another day... Dpbsmith 02:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The wife in question would be Isabella Eugenie (Boyer) Singer, and she was certainly in Paris from 1867 (the birth of her son, Paris Singer) onward. There's no problem with chronology or location. Ruth Brandon, Singer and the Sewing Machine: A Capitalist Romance, p. 211, discussing matters after Isaac's death in 1875: "She was rid of the uncouth presence of her husband, who had left her with only his most socially desirable attributes: his fortune and...his children. She was, from the beginning of her career in Paris, a well-known figure. As the good-looking French widow of an American industrialist she was called upon to be Bartholdi's model for the Statue of Liberty, then being prepared for presentation by the people of France to the Americans on the occasion of the centennial of the Republic (although it arrived several years too late for the actual celebrations)." The statement is, however, unsourced. - Nunh-huh 02:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Excellent! I've put it back, with the Ruth brandon reference> Wetman 02:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Of course, that wily M. Bartholdi may well have made use of more than one model<G> - Nunh-huh 02:43, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nice! Now... we need to find a good picture of the statuesque Mrs. Singer. The one at http://www.torbytes.co.uk/op/tm6/lv2/item81-128.htm doesn't look much like Miss Liberty to me... Dpbsmith 12:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Height of statue

A May 21 edit by an anonymous user changed the stated height of the statue (base to torch tip) from 46.5 meters to 56.5 meters. I changed the primary statements of height information to be in feet, and I changed this particular figure to 46 meters, on the authority of the National Park Service website. JamesMLane 03:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Wisconsin prank

Great work by Dpbsmith to get permission to use the photo! I changed your phrase "giving the appearance that the entire statue were resting on the bottom of the lake." It doesn't really give that appearance. The arm is far too short. It's more of a fanciful suggestion than an appearance. JamesMLane 01:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Your current edit is very nicely phrased, I'm tempted to say perfectly. Dpbsmith 12:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That air-blast explosives-search device?

Anyone know any more about this? (Is anyone else old enough to remember those compressed-air systems they used to have at amusement-park funhouses (Aladdin's Castle, Playland, Rye, New York, to be specific) which were designed to lift women's skirts? Big laffs...

And is it really specific for explosives, or would any nitrate residue set it off? [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:51, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Deus Ex

Deus Ex had lots of different possible player choices, but I don't believe any of them involved the destruction of the the statue.

The headquarters for the agency that JC Denton worked for were located on the same island, and the first mission of the game involve terrorists IN the statue. They never blew it up while I was playing, though...

A sez: Dude, you weren't paying attention then. The statue was blown up before the game starts. You can see the remains of the head of the statue in that level if you look around carefully.

Liberty Island in New York or New Jersey?

Strictly speaking, Liberty Island is physically located withis the borders of Hudson County, NJ. This is significant, and different, from the fact that the island is federal property located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York.

From what I recall, Liberty Island is technically part of New Jersey, not New York. DigiBullet 05:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's a common misconception. The debate over sovereignty was never over Liberty Island, but rather Ellis Island, which is constructed of infill. -- Decumanus | Talk 05:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An anon, 67.171.1.204, recently added this statement to the History section. "It is a little known fact that the Statue of Liberty is actually in New Jersey." I've replaced it with this statement, from http://www.nps.gov/stli/ : "Liberty Island is federal property located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York." This sentence should probably be left in the article to deter reinsertion of incorrect information. Don't know whether this is really the best location in the article for it, others please feel free to tinker. The right place for any extended discussion would be the article on Liberty Island.

Anyone who thinks that it really is in New Jersey, please provide evidence here before inserting in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, User:Sekicho wordsmithed it a bit and I wordsmithed it a bit more and moved it up to the "description" section. Current text is:

Liberty Island, the location of the statue, is Federal property located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York. Because it is in the territorial waters of New Jersey it is sometime mistakenly believed to be part of New Jersey. There was in fact a long-running dispute between New York and New Jersey over the status of nearby Ellis Island, but Liberty Island was never involved in this dispute.

I wanted to say "New Jersey has never made any such claim" but I don't have time to do enough research to prove a negative. Anybody know?

Also, I find that I'm slightly puzzled by the status of Ellis Island. Our article (and the park service web site) says "Ellis Island is managed by the National Park Service and is jointly part of both the states of New Jersey and New York." A 1998 CNN story, New Jersey wins claim to Ellis Island, says "The high court, by a 6-3 vote, declared that Ellis Island, the site of the landmark U.S. immigration processing center from the 1890s until 1954, belongs largely to New Jersey in a case that mainly involved symbolic bragging rights. As a result, most of the island in New York Harbor from now on must be considered Ellis Island, New Jersey.... The Supreme Court agreed that New Jersey could claim the land to the low-water mark. But the justices also agreed with the Clinton administration that it could not adjust the original boundary to avoid splitting buildings." It doesn't matter re the Statue of Liberty article, but these two statements ("Jointly part of both" and "belongs largely to New Jersey") don't seem to be perfectly equivalent. Perhaps there was some later agreement? I'm going to copy this remark to Talk:Ellis Island which I guess is where it should be discussed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed "in the territorial waters of NJ" to "nearer to the NJ shore". The island is not in the territorial waters of NJ, as the original compact creating NJ out of the Province of New York specified that all islands in the Hudson River belong to New York (this became an issue in the status of Staten Island early on. Ellis Island was disputed because it is not a natural island but was created from infill (like most of nearby Liberty State Park. -- Decumanus 18:33, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Both Liberty Island and Ellis Island belong to New Jersey. As a lifelong resident of New Jersey, these are facts that I know. I also know that out-of-staters commonly misperceive that both are part of NYC, as the islands are often thought of as being symbolic of "New York". However, this is clearly ignorance on the part of people who think this. It's the same as when people believe that the Giants/Jets play IN New York because they have "New York" in their names, so therefore Giants Stadium couldn't possibly NOT be in NYC. It's the same as when people believe that Newark is a neighborhood or a borough of NYC, since Newark Airport is considered a "NYC" airport. It's the same type of ignorance that once led Tori Spelling to claim that "New Jersey" was the capital of New York. Some people genuinely don't seem to be able to understand that there are two different states and/or where one state ends and the other begins. With the borders between the two states, there are no convenient indicators that you can point to and say we must be here or there. Most of northern NJ is identical to most of southern NY state in every way, most of NJ's large cities and urban areas are identical to NYC in every way, and rural upstate NY is identical to rural southern & western NJ in every way. I don't know how the NYers feel about the issue, but most of us in NJ are fed up with NY getting credit for NJ things simply because NYC is the big city that everyone associates most with the area. (It does happen the other way around too, just not as often--one example that I can think of is a friend of mine who recently commented that he was in "NJ"'s Pallisades Mall; this mall is actually just over the border in NY state, which, as I said, blends in seemlessly with northeastern NJ.) The confusion is probably due to the fact that NYC lies not off the coast of NY, but off the coast of NJ, and therefore NYC and NJ share each other's resources much more quickly and often than NYC does with its own state; and that geographically, economically, politically, culturally, and socially, NYC would fit in much better as a part of NJ than a part of the rural, cold, working-class, farmland state that the rest of NY is.

The notion that the Statue of Liberty or Ellis Island is within NY's borders is just similar ignorance as the stuff I've listed above, which is perpetuated by people who are unfamiliar with the area, New Yorkers who don't want to "lose" "their" monuments and historical sites, and lazy/careless academics who use the term "New York" to mean the entire metro area but are misinterpreted as having meant the city itself. NY state's license plate used to have the statue on it, as does its state quarter. Again, this is SYMBOLIC use of the statue as representig the NY metro area--but, ignorant people don't interpret it that way because they do not understand the intricacies of the NYC-NJ relationship which is something that is unheard of in all other parts of the country (i.e., in other states, a city belongs to a state and most directly affects its OWN state; and people from out of state have to travel INTO and then WITHIN the other state in order to get to the state's city--not true of NJ residents and NYC, most of whom have been to the city far more often than to NY state). Ignorant comments by high-profile political figures like Rudy Guiliani don't help things either, because he obviously gets more international press coverage than the mayor of Jersey City or the Jersey governor. Who cares that his ancestors "didn't intend" to go to NJ when they entered the U.S.A.? Neither did mine, who all settled initially in NYC before making the move to NJ a generation or two later! The fact of the matter is, though, that all our ancestors did enter the states via NJ when checking in at Ellis Island, regardless of whether they initially settled in NJ, NY, or whether their decesdants live in NJ or NY now.

For anyone who wants to know the TRUTH, it's clearly out there to be found. Your laziness shows in that you removed factual information from this article simply because you did not agree with the facts. The presence of such facts complicates matters, and makes people realize that issues relating the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are not cut & dry, black & white. People don't like change. People don't like "radical" ideas, or change of the status quo. People are comfortable associating the Statue and Ellis with New York, so they don't want to hear about how these symbols of America, New York City, and New York's status as a nineteenth century immigration headquarters aren't actually IN New York City, or the state of New York, at all. People don't like the idea of having to go to New Jersey in order to see "New York's" world-renowned monuments. Part of me can relate to that--it would be as if we had to actually go to, say, Canada in order to see the Empire State Building, or if the Eiffel Tower was not really in France at all, but was in Luxembourg. We'd feel cheated, lied to. Who wants to go to Luxembourg? We came to France to see the tower, and goddammit, we're going to see the tower IN France! But, ultimately, thoughts like this show bias, because NJ has as much culture and history as NY and, like it or not, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are part of ITS history and culture, not NY's. I know it probably takes away some of the statue's "magic" for you, but, oh well...you can't go on believing in Santa Claus forever.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a fact to people who will likely do and say anything to refute it, no matter how much evidence I show. But, I will give one quick piece of proof which, to the average and unbiased reader, should be more than enough. Here's a Mapquest link:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&address=&city=jersey+city&state=nj&zipcode=

It's of Jersey City, the red star. Zoom in two levels: You'll see the Communipaw area of JC in the northwest, with Liberty State Park jutting out from it into the harbor. The two small islands off of the coast of Liberty Park (I wonder where it gets its name?) are Ellis & Liberty Islands. Then about 3X further from the Jersey coast than the islands are themselves, you'll see the BORDER between NY and NJ. So, the islands are both CLEARLY within the border (as I said, they're about 1/3-1/2 way between the Jersey coast and the BORDER of NYC; it's not even an ambiguous issue! As can also be seen on the map at this zoom level, the closest that NYC comes to either island is something called "Governors Island", which is not even an official part of the city. Manhattan can be seen in the upper right corner, and Brooklyn in the lower right. Neither of the two islands comes close to either borough's land. Zoom in one more level, and you will see each island clearly labeled (in case you think this is some kind of trick). Note: I never challenged ANYTHING in any article that said NYC laid claim to either island or has some form of political/economic control over either island, because NYC CLEARLY DOES have control and influence over the islands, and the islands are CLEARLY symbolic representors of the city. I merely added in, in an attempt to reduce bias and increase accuracy (which, I thought, are two of this project's biggest goals in its articles), information that NJ also had similar rights over the islands as well the territorial ownership of the islands, and people are in an uproar over it! It's outrageous!

You want more evidence, don't trust a map, whatever?...do your own searching.68.44.184.172 05:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The State border in not drawn in the middle of the river and water but instead along the shore of New Jersey. The whole hudson river and all waters are of New York. If I can remember the name of the treaty declaring this I would. But the island is undoubtedly in New York State. Lord Metroid 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I did. I cited my reference above, the Park Service. The only reference you cite is a map which shows the physical location of the statue. I trust the map but I don't trust your interpretation of the map. You are presenting your personal interpretation. As it happens, the town I live in owns a reservoir that is contained entirely within the marked boundaries of a neighboring town. The ownership of the reservoir is not in dispute. However, simply looking at any map would not show the reservoir's status. Please cite something other than a Mapquest map and your own opinion that, based on its location, it ought to be considered part of New Jersey. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) P. S. The question of the attitudes of New Yorkers toward New Jersey are not germane to the question.

DISCUSSION: New York or New Jersey?

Let's try to stay calm and wordsmith this.

I am starting this section for discussion of the question of how to phrase portions of the article bearing on whether Liberty Island and/or the statue of Liberty are "in" New York or New Jersey. Do not remove the NPOV notice or edit the statements in the article that deal with this question until consensus is reached here.

I believe, based on prior discussion above, that the statements in the article, viz:

The Statue of Liberty is located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, some 3 kilometers south-west of the southern tip of Manhattan.

Liberty Island/Statue of Liberty is about a mile within New Jersey. cf. : http://www.pacostravels.com/pics/misc/nyc%20map.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.110.136 (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Island, the location of the statue, is Federal property located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York. Because it is nearer to the New Jersey shore, it is sometime mistakenly believed to be part of New Jersey. A longstanding dispute between New York and New Jersey over the status of nearby Ellis Island (q. v.) was settled in 1998 largely in favor of New Jersey, but Liberty Island was not involved in this dispute.

are factually correct and fairly phrased.

The paragraph as edited by 68.44.184.172 to read

The Statue of Liberty is located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, some 2 miles (3 km) south-west of the southern tip of Manhattan and a few hundred feet off the coast of Jersey City. (The island was informally known as Liberty Island since the early 1900s, but was officially Bedloe's Island until 1956.)

(i.e. to make it clear that it's relatively farther from New York and very close to New Jersey) seems OK, too.

Liberty Island, the location of the statue, is Federal property located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York, which is why many erroneously believe that the statue is part of that state. However, in actuality, the island is well within the border of the state of New Jersey, merely feet off the coast of Jersey Coty. A longstanding dispute between New York and New Jersey over the status of nearby Ellis Island (q. v.) was settled in 1998 largely in favor of New Jersey, but Liberty Island was not involved in this dispute, so New York still lays claim to the island.

This needs wordsmithing. If "New York still lays claim to the island" then why isn't the statue "part of that state?" I'm not saying it is, I'm saying the language needs clarification. There was an official dispute between the states on the status of Ellis Island, which has been resolved. Is there an official dispute between New York and New Jersey over Liberty Island which has not been resolved? Or is there only an unofficial "cultural" dispute?

In the "smaller copies" section, I don't like the change from "the original Liberty in New York" to "the original Liberty in New Jersey." I suggest that this and the parallel sentence later be changed to "the original Liberty in New York Harbor" or "the original Liberty in the U.S." in order to sidestep the issue in that part of the article.

I would not object to a short paragraph saying that there is a dispute and presenting the New Jersey point of view. Can it be backed up by official statements from New Jersey officials? Newspaper editorials? Something that is not simply 68.44.184.172 asserting what he says is the New Jersey point of view?

(I don't live in New York by the way and don't care which state the statue is "in."). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I live in NJ and I do care. Especially since it is new JERSEY which supplies the electricity and water and everything else to the island. it is located in New JERSEY waters and has been faught over repeatedly by New York and New Jersey. New Jersey has a Statue of Liberty license plate which no one on here seems to even know about - which is the one I have - New Jersey's Statue of Liberty License Plate. --JerseyDevil 10:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Please clarify your remark that it "has been fought over repeatedly by New York and New Jersey." That's just the point that I haven't been able to find any evidence of. We all know about the fight over Ellis Island, but so far nobody has produced any evidence of any dispute over Liberty/Bedloe's Island. If you have any references to any such dispute, I think it would be appropriate to include them in the article (after discussion). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about about "New York Harbor?" Is it acceptable to say the statue and island are "in New York Harbor" (as opposed to "in New York State" or "in New York?") Or is the name "New York Harbor" objected to by New Jersey residents? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't object to being said that it's in NY Harbor - as long is it is stated it's inNJ waters - since that is where it is located. --JerseyDevil 10:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this site says:

"Some people also believe that the the statue is is New Jersey, not New York. This is an urban myth. While Liberty Island is geographically closer to New Jersey than New York, it is part of the Empire State the same way Staten Island is, even though it, too, is closer to New Jersey than New York City."

Well, what about that? Is the analogy to Staten Island valid? Would anybody say that Staten Island is "in New Jersey?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is all a moot argument: The original 1664 charter of the Province of New Jersey (carved out of part of the Province of New York) to Berkeley and Carteret from the Duke of York specified that all the islands in the Hudson River remained part of New York charter text. Specifically New Jersey was "bounded by the Hudson River" rather than from the middle channel, as was common in other colonial charters. That is, as everyone understood at the the time, the NY-NJ border does not go through the center of the river channel as one might naturally assume (the same is true with the Ohio River, for example, where all the islands belong to West Virginia and Kentucky and not to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. This go to be an issue recently when Ohio tried to extend the shoreline to creat a power facility. The river itself is part of West Virginia there). So Bedloes (Liberty Island) was always part of the Province and State of New York based on the 1664 charter, the borders of which carried over into the states. The fact that Liberty Island is owned by the federal goverment is immaterial. Within the continental U.S., outside the District of Columbia, there is no such thing as federal property not part of a state. Even though the federal goverment controls it, it is technically still within New York State. As for Staten Island, the status was disputed after the original 1664 charter based on whether or not it was really an island "in" the Hudson. That is, is the Arthur Kill part of the mouth of the Hudson, or is the Hudson to be identified solely with the Narrows. An unattested legend is that the status of Staten Island was settled based on whether or not one could sail around it within 24 hours, which proved to be possible, and thus it became part of New York, not New Jersey. But by contrast Bedloes was never disputed. The reason Ellis Island was disputed was that it was created from infill (like Liberty State Park) and thus is not an natural island that existed at the time of the charter. There never has been a dispute over Liberty Island, on the other hand. The fact that it is nearer to the Jersey shore is immaterial, even if it seems to be counter to what one would expect. -- Decumanus 23:11, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Thanks. As I nibble away at this myself, I find that New York almost seems to be a little archipelago and contains quite a few little islands here and there... Another website, http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/liberty/libertyquestions.htm#solq12 says:
Q: ...recently, I heard that the site on which the Statue of Liberty stands... might even belong to New Jersey. Is that true ? Makio M. A. The ownership of Liberty Island has never been questioned as New York Territory. It was owned privately in the 18th century and known as Bedloe's Island, eventually acquired by the State of New York, governed under the jurisdiction of New York City. The report you heard about was a dispute over Ellis Island...
I have been Googling and newspaper-searching on combinations like "Liberty Island" dispute and "Liberty Island" "New York" "New Jersey" and so far have found not the slightest scrap of evidence that there is or has ever been any official dispute about Liberty Island.
I did find a piece of evidence that there are other New Jersey residents who agree with 68.44.184.172, in the form of a New York Times article, May 31, 1994, p. B4 (well, I have access to a searchable archive of the New York Times but not to any New Jersey newspapers... the ones that are online, like the Star-Ledger, appear to offer searches only within the last two weeks), entitled "Claiming Miss Liberty as a Jersey City Resident," which is basically a human-interest piece on one Richard Boggiano who "knows all too well that some people would put him in the same orbit as the flat earthers and moon landing conspiracy theorists... [he] will not be budged from his conviction that Jersey City is the territorial home of Ellis Island. Liberty Island, too. 'Oh, sure,' he said. 'Both of them are in our territorial waters. The Statue of Liberty is One Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City. Ellis Island is Two Communipaw.... Mr. Boggiano and a small but impassioned group of New Jerseyans, most of them from Jersey City, are determined to spread the Jersey side of the story...." The piece gives the rationale, accepted by the court, for considering Ellis Island part of New Jersey, but says nothing specific about Liberty Island.
I am not sure whether the existence of this group of people needs to be mentioned in the article. It's not clear to me how important it is. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal I'm going to give 68.44.184.172 a day or so to respond. If nobody presents any serious evidence that, as of 2004, the state of New Jersey officially disputes the ownership of Liberty Island, I will change the two references to the French statue as facing "New York" to say that it faces "New York Harbor," and put back the phrase inserted by 68.44.184.172 that notes that Liberty Island is located "a few hundred feet off the coast of Jersey City, and remove the POV notice. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I largely agree, except I think that Decumanus's fine research should be mentioned, to forestall future editors from "discovering" that it's on the Jersey side of the line and thinking they'll correct the mistake. I also don't like "territorial jurisdiction" of New York. That wording might suggest some kind of unusual legalistic arrangement. No one would say that Buffalo is under the territorial jurisdiction of New York, although of course it is, and for the same reason as Liberty Island -- that it's part of the state. Here's my specific suggestion:
First paragraph under "Description":
The Statue of Liberty is located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, some two miles (three km) southwest of the southern tip of Manhattan, and a few hundred feet off the coast of Jersey City, New Jersey. (The island was officially called "Bedloe's Island" until 1956, but the name "Liberty Island" has been in popular use since the early 1900s.)
Last paragraph under "Description":
Although Liberty Island is closer to New Jersey than to New York, it has been part of New York since the issuance in 1664 of the colonial charter that created New Jersey (see charter text). Portions of nearby Ellis Island that were formed by subsequent landfilling are, under a Supreme Court decision, part of New Jersey, but that decision had no effect on Liberty Island. The island is owned by the federal government and is administered by the National Park Service.
Decumanus, I think the additional information about the charter etc. that you found is too much detail for this article, but should go into the Liberty Island article. Should the concept of English royal charters in the New World be added to the charter article, or do you think a new article on colonial charter would be justified? JamesMLane 04:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above. Continuing with my own less-well-informed concerns... I'm assuming that nobody has any objections to modifying the descriptions of the statue in France to say that it faces the statue in "New York Harbor" rather than New York. Now. Is the (I-think-erroneous) belief by some New Jersey boosters that the ownership/jurisdiction/whatever of Liberty Island is a) in dispute, and b) rightfully was or is or should be New Jersey... is that a "fact about opinions" that ought to go in the article? I'm on the fence about this myself. Certainly if there were to be a paragraph about it, JerseyDevil's license plate would be a fine illustration... On the whole I've found much less chatter about this e.g. searching on USENET than might have been expected if it were really a widely-held belief and a serious thing among New Jersey residents. A few curt exchanges and not very serious exchanges of battling assertions on alt.fan.cecil-adams ("OK, you can have Liberty Island but only if you take Staten Island, too." "Oh, well, in that case never mind" sort of thing). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

QUESTION: "Liberty Island, the location of the statue, is Federal property located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York." As of 2004, does the fact that it is "within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York" have any practical, real-world meaning that anyone knows of? (Obviously, in the future, if through unthinkable contingencies the island were to cease to become a national monument and Federal property the fact that it belonged to New York would have some significance if, say, someone wanted to site a casino or a Starbucks there or something...) As it stands, does it have any meaning other than giving New York the right to say they own it in some technical sense? I'd assume any law enforcement on Liberty Island is handled by the Feds, any construction by the park service, etc. In other words, apart from a (valid and undisputed) territorial claim, does New York have any relationship to the island? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, I dislike the phrase "territorial jurisdiction". Liberty Island is like the campus at West Point -- it's politically a part of New York, and the property owner is the federal government. (New York State might decide to buy a house in Arlington, Virginia to provide as a perk to its chief lobbyist who works Congress on behalf of New York. That wouldn't move the house to New York. It would still be part of Virginia regardless of who owned it.) If your question is whether it makes any practical difference that the island is part of New York, the answer is: "Not much, but some." For example, New York has a statute, not shared by any other state AFAIK, that gives particularly strong protection to construction workers injured in certain types of accidents. My former law firm represented someone who'd been injured while doing repair work on a building at West Point. The defense argued that the New York statute was inapplicable because West Point is a federal enclave. We found a federal statute addressing subjects not covered by federal law, such as the tort law governing an accident. The federal rule is that, on federal enclaves, the law of the state is applied. So this issue will make a difference the first time some guy who's painting the wall at the Liberty Island visitor center falls off his ladder and is injured. There are other types of disputes that could be affected by the choice between New York law and New Jersey law. JamesMLane 02:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

START OF DRAFT for proposed paragraph or section, to be located just before or after the Popular Culture section, including juicy morsel carved from Decumanus' text above: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Relationship to New Jersey Some New Jersey boosters, particularly in Jersey City, resent the popular association of the Statue of Liberty with the state and city of New York. Although New York's territorial claim to Liberty Island has never been in dispute, these boosters insist that Liberty Island "belongs to New Jersey" or "is located within New Jersey's territorial waters." The island is, in fact, only a few hundred feet from Jersey City, and superb views of the statue can be had from Liberty State Park on the New Jersey mainland. A 1994 newspaper article quotes Jersey City resident Richard Boggiano as insisting that the proper street address of the Statue of Liberty "is One Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City. Ellis Island is Two Communipaw." It is not unusual to see maps with the border between New Jersey and New York conveniently but inaccurately drawn down the center of the Hudson River, thus apparently showing Liberty Island as located within New Jersey's borders. New Jersey supplies the electricity for both Liberty and Ellis Island, and features an image of the statue on one of its license plate designs.
Unfortunately for such claims—and unlike the case of Ellis Island—there has never been any official dispute about the status of Liberty Island. The original 1664 charter of the Province of New Jersey specified that all the islands in the Hudson River remained part of New York charter text. Specifically New Jersey was "bounded by the Hudson River" rather than from the middle channel, as was common in other colonial charters. That is, as everyone understood at the the time, the NY-NJ border does not go through the center of the river channel.

Does something like this belong in the article? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that it doesn't belong, based on this policy: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.... If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia...." (Wikipedia:No original research#Classifying viewpoints by appropriateness). In this case, we're told that the POV that the statue is in Jersey City is held by "Mr. Boggiano and a small but impassioned group of New Jerseyans, most of them from Jersey City..." Not worth reporting. JamesMLane 02:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summary to date. And: where IS the NY/NY boundary, as of, say, 1834?

I've taken the NPOV tag off; I was the one who put it on. That doesn't mean the discussion is over and I hope it will continue. I changed the two mentions of the French statue to say that it faces "New York Harbor." I've changed the description of the location to include the distance from Jersey City, listed the (much shorter) distance from Jersey City first, and gave the distances from Jersey City in feet and meters and the distances from New York in statues mile and kilometers, which I think makes the point.

User:JerseyDevil still thinks there should be some language to the effect that Liberty Island is geographically within the territorial waters of New Jersey, but I think this needs further hashing out.

Here's where I I think we are:

  • Liberty Island is "in" New York State, and nobody has yet suggested that there has ever been any official dispute about this. This is because of legalities and agreements between the states and not because of what you'd expect by looking at a map or measuring mean high water at neap tide or whatever.
  • User:Digibullet, anon 67.171.1.204, anon 68.44.184.172, and User:JerseyDevil have made assertions and given reasons why it should be associated with New Jersey.
  • It is clear that there are some New Jersey boosters who are deeply resentful of what they perceive as an unfair popular perception that New York is somehow superior to New Jersey, and the location of the Statue of Liberty is involved in this resentment.
  • One newspaper story identifies one such booster who lives in Jersey City, but nobody has yet turned up any prominent officials or authorities or mayors or governors saying anything like this.
  • There is not yet agreement on whether the faction insisting that Liberty Island is "in New Jersey" is large enough or important enough to merit more than the degree of coverage presently in the article (the short paragraph at the end of the Description section).

New Jersey boosters tend to cite these things in evidence of their claim:

  • The Ellis Island decision
  • Ordinary maps (road maps, online maps, road atlases), which generally (four out of four I've checked) draw the border down the center of the Hudson, label Liberty Island, and do not have any dotted lines or parenthetical notes that say anything about its status other than what can be inferred visually
  • The New Jersey license plate with the picture of the Statue of Liberty on it
  • Statements that the island is "within New Jersey's territorial waters"

Now, I am perfectly clear that the position of the main boundary between New York and New Jersey, as drawn on a map, would not prove anything, since it is quite common for countries, states, counties, towns, etc. to "own" little discontiguous chunks of things that appear to be within the borders of neighbors.

But, where IS the border line?

Regardless of whether we put anything more in the main article, I'd still like to get the facts as straight as possible, and I particularly want to understand what Decumanus is saying in the paragraph about the 1664 charter, which says the original historic boundary did not pass down the center of the Hudson but that New Jersey was bounded by the Hudson itself.

But did that change in 1834?

  • http://www.hudsonlights.com/liberty.htm is a detailed and interesting account of Liberty Island's various changes of status. It says that "While Bedloe's Island, with an area of approximately 12 acres, is located in the Upper Bay of New York Harbor, it is geographically in the territorial waters of New Jersey. The island itself above the mean low-water mark is in New York State, pursuant to an interstate compact entered into by New Jersey and New York in 1834. The State of New Jersey retains the riparian rights to all the submerged land surrounding the statue and extending eastward to the normal interstate boundary line at the middle of the Hudson River Channel." That seems to say that the current state boundary now is in "the middle of the Hudson River Channel." What do people, particularly Decumanus, have to say about this language?
  • http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980526/120orig.htm which seems an, um, whatever it is, about the Supreme Court decision, says "An 1834 compact between New York and New Jersey, approved by Congress pursuant to the Compact Clause, set the boundary line between the States as the middle of the Hudson River" with various exceptions, and since this is a summary of the Ellis Island cases it does not go into details.

Maps (I'm looking at the DeLorme New York atlas) do seem to show the border going down the center of the Hudson, then turning sharply west to include Staten Island within New York. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P. S. I'm thinking that if anything more about the New Jersey claim is to be said, the place for it is in the Liberty Island article, with a brief See Also note in Statue of Liberty. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is the reason for the former dispute over the created island Ellis Island. The existing natural islands (Liberty Island, Staten Island, Prall's Island) were not affected by this compact. No one in an official status has ever claimed that they were. Ellis Island and part of Shooter's Island are infill. I'm not interested in arguing this further, because there really is no argument on an official basis. If you decide it belongs to New Jersey and want to change the article to say it belongs to New Jersey, go ahead.-- Decumanus 15:43, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
Decumanus, I don't disagree with you. In order to write something accurate, I want to be personally clear on where the current boundary between New York and New Jersey is drawn.
  • My current belief is that as of 1834 the boundary line is in the middle of the Hudson,
  • Maps which show it there are correct,
  • This fact is completely irrelevant to the issue of which state Liberty Island is "in," because all the islands belong to New York;
  • The only dispute has ever been about landfill added to Ellis Island
  • There is a case to be made for the following statement: although Liberty Island is indisputably under the territorial jurisdiction of New York, it is geographically situated within the current boundaries of New Jersey.

But I don't want to say any of these things unless, well, they are true. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dpbsmith, I agree with you in all respects. What I've done is to implement the language I suggested above, except using your version of the distances (putting the distance from Jersey City first and in smaller units). If we can develop the subject at greater length in the Liberty Island article, it might be worth noting here that more detail is available there. JamesMLane 19:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Like your changes.
OK, I've basically decide to write a section on this issue, but in the article on Liberty Island. Continue discussion there. Decumanus, I won't bug you on your user page about this, but if you haven't lost patience with the whole thing I'd appreciate a critical eye on what I've written. User:JerseyDevil, see if what I've done is acceptable to you. See notes which I'm (just about to write) at Talk:Liberty Island.


There are a number of factual errors in this article. For one - the New Jersey Statue of Liberty plate was around prior to 2005. I should know - I had it in 2000.

  • Hey, Devil, ease off. I noticed that someone had added the New York plate to the article, so I added a mention of the New Jersey plate. I didn't add the image myself because I wasn't sure about its copyright status. I didn't word things clearly enough. I couldn't find the range of years in which the plate was available, so I said it was available as of 2005 in order to point out that the New Jersey plate is still available whereas the New York plate is not. I'll add some vague weasel-wording right now and if you can find out when the plate was first available, by all means put it in.

People are using the 1664 charter, which does not show the complete history of the dispute. It is now stated in the article that the statue of liberty is not in NJ's territorial waters - when in fact it is. The border between NJ and NY is the middle of the Hudson River, regardless what people may read into with the Charter. Just because people who seem to not be able to find any evidence that te Statue of Liberty has repeatedly been fought over by NJ and NY, doesn't mean it's not true. I live in NJ, I remember the fights with NY over it. The 100's of websites I had linked during the recent NJ and NY 1990's dispute are all deadsites now. This may be news to some people - but just because you can't find it on the web, doesn't mean it's not true. Here is a news flash for people - prior to the net, things were stored on paper in libraries - where much of the evidence still is. --JerseyDevil 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My view, as a fairly disinterested observer (from the Boston area): first, the issue is purely symbolic, a matter of local boosterism, since the island is owned by the Federal Government. I don't believe it matters which state the island is "in" and I don't believe it will ever matter until the Feds give up jurisdiction—or decide to outsource the management of the Statue of Liberty to private interest, or allow commercial development on the island, or something like that. Who owns Halley's Comet? You might be able to find some theoretical legal reasoning that would answer that question, but it wouldn't matter because the issue isn't going to be tested in the foreseeable future because nobody can get there and nobody can use it.
Second, we are perfectly open to print evidence but you must cite that evidence. I have online access via my local public library to the full text of the New York Times back to 1857 or so, so I can quickly verify any New York Times stories you may have. It's quite possible if you check with your library that you have online access to New Jersey newspapers. And if you cite any verifiable print source, e.g. a newspaper article with date and page number, or a book with page number and ISBN, most Wikipedians will accept that as a good verifiable reference. Notice that nobody has objected to the citation of "Richard Boggiano of Jersey City as insisting that the proper street address of the Statue of Liberty is One Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City." Because I think Boggiano was wrong, but I think that a) he really did say that, and b) it is an accurate statement of a Jersey City opinion, and c) Jersey City opinion is relevant to the article.
Third, I think we had consensus to put the bulk of the New York/New Jersey stuff in the Liberty Island article, and the Liberty Island article states clearly that "Although it is not a part of New Jersey, it is situated on the New Jersey side of the boundary line between New Jersey and New York."
If you can find reasonably well-sourced statements that have language you like better, let's have them.
Finally, if you're the Robert Rosetta who took the pictures recently added to the Liberty Island article, they're really nice. I like the one with the phragmites, if that's what it is, in the foreground and Lady Liberty in the background.

If it doesn't matter whether NY or NJ has rights to Liberty Island - than why is so many people making sure that NJ gets as little ackonwledgement for the Island as possible? On the Liberty Island page the ridiculous statement is made that "perhaps and arguement can be made that Liberty Island is 'geogrpahically' in NJ waters". It's not a matter of whether perhaps it can be made - the fact is that Liberty Island IS geographically in NJ. There is no dispute to that.

I also resent the tone that basically indicates that New Jerseyans are fighting this because of some superiority complex with NY (this has been in the Liberty Island page mostly). It seems to me that NY has the superiority complex. Whatever NJ has - NY tries to claim. New Jerseyans are just fighting the arrogant New York attitude. It has nothing to do with being a New Jersey "booster" - which is sort of a funny term - since no similar term is used for the New York "supporters".

As for the NY Liberty Plate - from what I understand, the removal of the NY plate was required by an agreement between NY and NJ during the Ellis Island dispute. Maybe you were trying your best with the date of the NJ plate - but the way it was worded make it sound like it just came out this year. I actually think it came out in 1997. I know it was avaible at around that time while I was in Oregon. I added the picture of the NJ Statue of Liberty plate. Plates are public domain, I had thought about just putting a picture of my license plate up there - since I do have the Statue of Liberty Plate.

As for citing evidence, I have quoted the NJ charter that disputes several claims that NJ was never granted the islands. One htat is even included in this page..."Although Liberty Island is closer to New Jersey than to New York, it has been part of New York since the issuance in 1664 of the colonial charter that created New Jersey (see charter text). " The 1664 charter clearly states that lands west of Manhattan Island and Long Island were granted to NJ - "confirm unto the said John Lord Berkley and Sir George Carteret, their heirs and assigns for ever, all that tract of land adjacent to New England, and lying and being to the westward of Long Island, and Manhitas Island". Even though I quoted the chater - I was told I needed to provide a reference to a book that says that that is what the charter says. :rolleyes: I feel this is just ridiculous and this isn't about people wanting to present the truth. Liberty Island, Ellis Island, as well as Staten Island and Governors Island, are all west of Long Island and were thus granted to NJ in the 1664 charter. No where in the charter text does it make any exception to the islands in NY Harbor as has been stated up above in the previous section.

Finally - thank you for the compliments on the pictures. The one with the Statue of Liberty is taken a bit far away. You can get much closer from Liberty State Park than that. In the distance you can sort of make out promenade bridge that goes throught the wildlife area. With the Ellis Island picture, I wanted to show the maintenace bridge and the way all the employees get to Ellis Island. --JerseyDevil 20:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

List of movies

I thought it was against WP policy to not use sub pages... Cburnett 20:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

You have one too many negative in there, but I get your meaning, and you're correct. I'm moving the list from a subpage to a daughter article. JamesMLane 20:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Semantically, it's a subpage. But the new name is fine, too. - Pioneer-12 04:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statue colour over time

Liberty is clearly a greenish colour today, but the unveiling painting shows it black. This would be consistent with the way that copper changes over time while exposed to air. Are there any facts or observations available about how long the black colour lasted? If nothing else, a definitive explanation for how it looks black in the painting but green today would be valuable; I don't have the data to explain this adequately, however.

Additionally, did the statue ever look copper-coloured? I think a brilliantly shiny Liberty would have been unbelievably striking to see, but I've never seen any record that it ever looked this way. Could it have done? Was it intended to? (I guess this hinges on why copper was chosen as the material for the statue's skin.)

Fcw 13:02, 2005 May 31 (UTC)


i'm also curious about this! surely there are some newspaper accounts that describe the statue's original color.

- anon.

  • Copper was chosen because it could survive a transatlantic crossing well, and because it would stand up well to the salt air in New York harbor. Here's a quote from the National Park Service:
    Time has also improved the physical appearance of the statue. The former shiny copper exterior has been coated with an attractive patina of light-green verdigris which not only protects the metal from the effect of wind and rain but also enhances the beauty and dignity of the statue.
--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would turning green improve the physical appearance of the statue? Or "enhance the dignity"? I personally would prefer the shinny copper color. But that's just me. Perhaps gold would have been a better metal. :) - Lloyd -

Copper from Visnes

I've trimmed the section "origin of the copper" down considerably. This is mostly copy-editing; I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information itself.

The original text before I edited it was:

Through the years it was widely rumored that the copper used in the building of the Statue of Liberty came from Visnes in Norway. In the autumn of 1985 copper from the statue was analyzed and it was confirmed that it was indeed extracted at Visnes. Historical records make no mention of the source of the copper used in the construction of the Statue of Liberty, although a local tradition suggests that the copper came from the French-owned Visnes Mine near Stavanger, Norway. Records show that ore from this mine, refined in France and Belgium, was a significant source of European copper in the late nineteenth century.
To investigate further the origin of the statue's copper, Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, USA, analyzed the samples of copper from the Visnes Mines and from the Statue of Liberty by emission spectography. A comparison of the presence and concentration of metallic impurities showed the two samples to be very similar, and a review of historical and geographical information on possible suppliers of the copper suggests that the Visnes Mine is a very likely source. Bell Laboratories concluded that it was highly probable the copper from the Visnes Mine was used for the Statue of Liberty, and that the metallurgical evidence argues strongly that the copper comes from Norway.
In the 1870`s one of the most active of the Norwegian copper mines was at Visnes, a community situated on the island of Karmøy on the west coast. The copper at this site was discovered in 1865 and the mine constructed under the direction of Charles Defrance, a French mining engineer. Defrance was employed by a mining company in Antwerp, Belgium. During the 1865-1890 period the Visnes ore, a high grade pyrite-complex copper ore with zinc, was shipped to sulfuric acid plants in Dunkirk, France and Antwerp, Belgium. The location of the Visnes mine on the North Sea made transportation of the ore relatively convenient.

The first and second paragraphs contain a lot of repetition and duplication. Some quick Googling suggests that Bell Labs did the analysis in 1985, i.e. the "autumn of 1985" analysis = "Bell Labs" analysis.

The third paragraph does not really pertain to the Statue of Liberty. It would be very appropriate in an article on Visnes, Norway which we don't seem to have currently.

I trimmed this down to:

Historical records make no mention of the source of the copper used in the Statue of Liberty. In the town of Visnes, near Stavanger, Norway, tradition holds that the copper came from the French-owned Visnes Mine. Ore from this mine, refined in France and Belgium, was a significant source of European copper in the late nineteenth century. In 1985, Bell Laboratories used emission spectrography to compare samples of copper from the Visnes Mines and from the Statue of Liberty, found the spectrum of impurities to be very similar, and concluded that the evidence argued strongly for a Norwegian origin, and that a Visnes origin was highly likely.

For the purposes of an article about the statue, one paragraph about the origin of the copper seems sufficient. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many flames

What's outstandingly missing here is a discussion of the many flames that have graced Lady Liberty over the years. The current flame is not the original at all; I seem to recall offhand that 4 or 5 flames have been in the torch.

Ideal would be a set of photos, of course. — Xiong熊talk* 02:50, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

It looks like 5 different versions of 2 different flames. The original flame (1885) was solid, to be illuminated with exterior lamps on torch platform. Portholes were cut for interior illumination in 1886 just before official statue opening. A "glass belt" and "octagonal pyramid skylight" were added 1892 and then the whole surface of the flame was inset with yellow glass in 1916.

Meanwhile, a variety of lighting schemes were tried. The goal, of course, in typical, literal-minded American fashion, was to make the torch look like a torch -- blazing away, visible to the horizon. But despite constant improvements in technology, these efforts always seemed to disappoint.

The major reconstruction of the statue in 1984 included complete replacement of the flame. The new flame was designed to be identical with the original: solid copper, with exterior illumination. But the new flame is overlaid in gold leaf.

The original flame -- in, of course, it's final state after the 1916 mods -- is now in the Visitor's center.

http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/liberty/libertyfacts/LibertyTorch.htm

— Xiong熊talk* 10:51, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Weight of statue?

The National Park Service says: "The total weight of copper in the Statue is 62,000 pounds (31 tons) and the total weight of steel in the Statue is 250,000 pounds (125 tons). Total weight of the Statue's concrete foundation is 54 million pounds (27,000 tons)." [[5]]

Something that I found is missing in the article.

Duluth copy

Currently says:

There is also a small version of the staute in Duluth, Minnesota. It was given to the city by some of Bartholdi's descendants. But no one really knows its there because it is on the west side of the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center, in the center of a clearing surrounded by pine trees. It maybe easily unnoticed, but Bartholdi's descendants that still live in Duluth know where it is.

I'm a little unhappy with this. The location needs to be specified better and verified. Is it in Central Park and/or Enger Park, which are west of the DECC? Google Maps' satellite view doesn't have enough resolution...

Ah, here's some verification:

  • Other Public Art "STATUE OF LIBERTY after Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, Original Sculptor: West side of Duluth Entertainment Convention Center"

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

... and a picture... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

... and this page seems to have reports of many Liberty replica sightings. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that, the axe is not even mentioned? http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ny/ny1200/ny1251/photos/120312pv.jpg

--CorvetteZ51 09:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is seriously out of control. Somebody just added a third Simpsons gag. I suggest a pitiless culling. Barring that, perhaps we should add a "References on The Simpsons" section to every article. Imagine how much better Couch would be! --Tysto 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In the last month or so, there seems to have been a fad for adding subtrivial items, apparently off the top of contributors' heads, to "in popular culture" sections.
I suggest initially culling on the basis of the verifiability policy. Tag every item for which no source is cited with a {{fact}} tag, give it about a week, then remove the items that have not been sourced. (Caution: I've seen contributors who apparently do not understand or do not accept the verifiability policy respond by removing the tag, or inserting a "reference" that does not specifically mention the fact supposedly being referenced, or a "reference" to an open Wikipedia-like site to which anyone can contribute).
The Simpsons material should be condensed into something like "The Statue of Liberty appeared in Simpsons episodes 3F22, 3Q16, and 6J25" or however the episode numbering system works and a one sentence summary of the most memorable or important appearance in the series. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability problems in "smaller copies" section

I rather think that all of these are accurate, but very few of them are properly sourced, as they should be per the verifiability policy. I don't have any plans to remove these items in the near future, but they really should be sourced, and I do intend to be assertive about keeping the {{fact}} tags on them until they are. Obviously the ones illustrated by images exist, but even here there's a problem, as I don't think a Wikipedian's personal statement in an image description counts as a verifiable source, even though it would be ludicrous to suggest that these photographs are anything other than what they are said to be.

I'll be looking for a few sources myself, but, of course, "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Split off section, #Smaller copies, into a separate article?

Support. It's my opinion that this article is a bit of a mess. The section on smaller copies has become much too long, relative to the part of the article that's devoted to the actual Statue of Liberty. By splitting of this section, it would help greatly to clean up this article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. At 35 kilobytes this article isn't unreasonably long; and I fear that creating a new article might reduce oversight and encourage the addition of dubious items. The section is near the end, where it isn't intrusive... and I think the "popular culture" section is much more of a problem than this one is.

I honestly think this section is reaching a certain natural limit... I'm thinking there are probably only a few hundred larger-than-human-size replicas in the world (whereas the number of trivial references to the statue in popular culture is innumerable, or in the tens of thousands anyway) We could instantly cut this section down by removing the unsourced entries, and slow its regrowth by enforcing the verifiability policy for future additions. I'm not ready to do that yet but I'd rather do that then create a repository for little-Liberty-cruft. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation demands

Dpbsmith has demanded a number of citations of pop culture refs. I have removed some of the demands for two reasons: first these are not controversial claims; they are either true or not true.

1) "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Please see the section of the policy that explains this.
2) Your edit comment says "citations are not need for well-known facts that could be easily disproven if they were wrong." If it says something like this somewhere in the verifiability policy I didn't notice it; please show me where.

By definition, if they are a part of "popular" culture, then many editors are already familiar with them. If one is NOT true, remove it. Second, several of them are obvious from images that appear in their own WP articles. The fact that the NY Liberty b-ball team uses the SoL as its mascot does NOT need an outside citation, for Pete's sake.

3) If it's so obvious, then it shouldn't be too hard to stick in a link to the team's website, for Pete's sake. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It just took me about forty-five second to do this. However, the verifiability policy notes that "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." (For the record, no, I don't want to remove it, I want the people who want this material in the article to reference it). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Guess what. In the process of trying to provide a verifiable source, I just discovered that The New York Liberty does not use the Statue of Liberty as its mascot. The mascot is Maddie, "a lovable dog." I didn't expect that, but it does show the importance of checking facts, even facts that are "obvious" and "undisputed." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I also removed a couple of pop culture refs because they were so inconsequential. MASH's Klinger dressing as the SoL is not at all culturally relevant enough for the article. Some of the video game refs should also be removed, but I am not enough of a VG expert to know if some of them really are famous among gamers. --Tysto 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the verifiability policy. Nothing in Wikipedia is supposed to rest on the personal authority of editors; everything is supposed to have been published elsewhere, by a reputable source and cited. In about a week I intend to remove any entries that have not been sourced. Please leave the tags in place to provide proper notice.
I intend to do due diligence when removing any apparently unsourced items; i.e. if they link to a Wikipedia article that does provide a source for the Statue of Liberty appearance, I'll copy that source into the Statue of Liberty article).
Yes, a screenshot is a reasonable source, but there should be a specific citation linking directly to the screenshot.
I do regard the movies themselves as sources, although there is not really any provision for this in the current policy; but the citation must be specific (e.g. give the specific DVD edition and the number of minutes into the film in which the statue appears). Citations such as "in the opening titles" are obviously good enough, too. The general idea is that someone who doesn't know the film but has a copy of the source should be able to verify the statue's appearance without having to watch large chunks of the movie or search back and forth trying to find "the scene with the chase" or whatever. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty (no pun intended) of ditching Dpbsmith's citation requests for the Deep Impact and Escape From New York references. They're painfully obvious if anyone has seen the films. The entries did not require a citation request. -Kingpin1055

The following discussion is an archived debate on selecting the intro photo for the Statue of Liberty article. Please do not modify this poll section. Subsequent comments about the intro photo should be made separately on the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this poll.

Intro photo

Lately, I've noticed a number of different photos used as the top, intro photo including:

Let's come to a consensus here on the talk page, as to which photo should be put at the top of the article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Lets setup a poll. Please mark your signature with ~~~~ under the photo you prefer at the top of the page. Add to the voting any additional photos that you would think is appropriate also. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll closed. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statuefront

Freiheits

  1. ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michael Dorosh 20:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kowloonese 23:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Majestic

Bencwright

File:Liberty 1 by bencwright.jpg
  1. Support. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll conclusion

The poll has been open for 11 days. Votes tally: 4 for Freiheits, 1 for Bencwright. Freiheits wins and will be the lead-in image. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

Place comments in this section.

I prefer Freiheits because it gives a sense of scale and shows the environs. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think there is room for both Freiheits and Bencwright, as I think we can trim other, less relevant images from the article. For example, we need only one replica (I'd say the one in Paris is good). The South Dakota and Met pictures can go. And, Image:Golden_statue.jpg is a neat picture, with the lighting, but lacks detail of the Statue of Liberty. I think that Freiheits would be a good replacement for Golden_statue.jpg. Also, we still need to deal with the pop culture section and cleanup the replicas section. I'll try to get around to it soon. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay. I just shuffled the images around into a better arrangement, cut down on the number of images (SD, Met, and Hitler pictures gone), swapped the order of the references and external links sections, and some other formatting. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder why Majestic_Liberty is in the ballot. It does not show some of the major features of the statue like the tablet etc. Kowloonese 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's true, but I took that photo to capture an angle rarely seen of the statue, and I like how, in that afternoon light with the face shaded, the rest of the statue forms interesting curves as though the statue itself (and not just the torch) were a giant flame. --BigMac 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Statue in Spain

There is a Statue of Liberty in a village of La Rioja (Spain) called Cenicero and it dates back to 1897. Pictures and history (spanish). Another link. It is not in the replicas list.

In WW I Liberty Loans poster

Here are some requested sources for the decapitated torchless statue in the Liberty Loans poster of 1918:

Academic and research institutions

And from the last academic colection (UC Davis) there is this citation: Public domain. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, DC 20540. LC-USZC4-1347. In Walton Rawls, Wake Up America!, 1988, p. 66.

Commercial

Moving unsourced "popular culture" items to Talk

OK, these items have been tagged for weeks now, and apparently nobody is interested in sourcing them. As I don my asbestos suit, let me point out:

  • The verifiability policy says all factual items in Wikipedia must have been published by a reputable source, and the burden of providing source citations rests with those who wish the information to remain in the articles. Nothing in that policy suggests that there is a lower standard for information that is in the field of popular culture, or fun.

To answer a few questions: a) Q: Do I have anything against popular culture? A: Not in principle, but popular culture items are indeed hard to source and therefore a high proportion of popular culture items in Wikipedia are not properly sourced. b) Q: Do I think the people who inserted the items were lying? A: No, but the verifiability policy is there for a reason, and we've already seen that one item that "did not need a source" (a statement that the statue is the mascot for the New York Liberty women's basketball team) in fact turned out to be inaccurate. Memory and "common knowledge" are shaky and need to be anchored in sources. c) Q: In the case of movies, video games, and TV episodes, why isn't the movie, game, or TV show itself the source? A: I think it could be, although this is not strictly within the verifiability policy or the source guideline, provided the citation is specific. In the case of a movie, the mention could be tied to e.g. a DVD's publisher, identification number, and the number of minutes into the movie at which the appearance occurs; for a television episode, perhaps the episode number, date of airing, and number of minutes. But the citation has to tell anyone who wants to check exactly where to find the occurrence. If you don't agree (or even if you do), then work on WP:RS to develop guidelines on what constitutes proper source citation for this sort of item. Meanwhile, a verbal mention in a published print or reliable web source would be better. d) Q: Why didn't you remove some other unsourced items? A: Become someone who felt strongly that they were adequately sourced removed the "citation needed" tags, and I don't care enough to argue the point. e) Q: If you knew anything about (video games, etc.) you'd know these facts are true; if you don't know anything about them you shouldn't be removing them. A: Unlike traditional encyclopedias, accuracy of Wikipedia articles cannot depend on the credentials or authority of contributors, which is why all factual items in WIkipedia must be traceable to other published sources, per WP:V. I don't know whether these items are true. My guess actually is that they are. But I do know they are unsourced, and the criteria for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The removed items

  • Several episodes of The Simpsons show the statue; in one, Bart, yelling from the crown (and mistaken for the voice of Lady Liberty herself) orders a boat full of immigrants to turn back because the United States is full; in another, Grandpa Simpson claims that his family lived in the statue when they arrived in the U.S., but were forced to leave when they had filled the head with garbage.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]
  • Spanish comic-book Mortadelo y Filemón features, in one particular adventure, main characters, Spanish counter-intelligence agents, travelling to New York after discovering that two men are to bomb the "Statue of Liberty". After having lots of trouble in New York, they come back to Spain and find that the statue to be bombed is not on New York, but on a small Spanish town, the statue of Liberty Boñíguez, the major's wife. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]
  • In the computer game Red Alert 2, the destruction of the Statue of Liberty is seen twice from different perspectives, once during the first allied mission and once during the introduction. In the first allied mission, the statue is destroyed by Soviet Dreadnaughts.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

Removed section

I've taken out this entire section. The reasoning is very simple - these items are not of interest to the Statue of Liberty itself. Sure, if we're talking about the show that references it it may be relevent, and a few (like two) of the most famous examples (a.k.a. Planet of the Apes) may be incorporated as prose, but a long list of unrelated items like this detracts from the focus of this article. - brenneman {L} 22:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We have sections like this for many articles. I'm putting it back in. SushiGeek 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't play to the least common denominator. Do you really imagine, in the epic span of the history of the statue of liberty that "Bart shouts to a boatload of immigrants Hey Immigrants! The country's full! Go back home! is relevant and encyclopedic? I'll trim out the most egregious ones, and we can discuss the others. - brenneman {L} 05:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aaron. "Popular culture" sections have their uses (e.g. showing the cultural impact of something that might otherwise be considered unimportant, such as Plan 9 from Outer Space), but I don't see where this is a valuable section for this article. One or two things may be worth keeping (e.g. the Fascist propaganda, the statues' use in protests, etc.), but they shouldn't be part of an "In popular culture" section, but worked into the text. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SushiGeek. The section interests a lot of people and in no way detracts from the focus of the article. It should be left as a list where it is (i.e. no prose). I am also somewhat offended by the snobbism implied by Brenneman. The Simpsons are extremely popular - their use of the statue in an episode should remain in the article-- JJay 11:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not keep it in an article about The Simpsons? Sure, The Simpsons is quite popular (once upon a time, deservedly so), but not so popular that a throwaway line in one episode has any relevence to the Statue of Liberty. I'm not certain how this is snobbish. Would it help if Pride and Prejudice mentioned the Statue of Liberty, and we removed it from the list as well? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes it would, although the removal would need to be reverted. Arguing that Planet of the Apes is more "encyclopedic" than the Simpsons is snobbish and betrays a certain amount of elitism and ageism that we should avoid. The relevance of the popular culture section is that it connects with the average person's experience, in a sense personalizing the statue. The historical prose section of this article is good for high school students who need to write a term paper. I'm willing to bet, though, that the average, casual reader after skimming those sections reads the popular references section much more closely. Frankly, Bart Simpson's words about the statue are just as meaningful, if not more so, than those of Paul Fussell. They could just as well be added to the lead paragraph-- JJay 11:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this argument would hold water if we were discussing an episode of the Simpsons that revolved around the statue of liberty, or that was groundbreaking or shocking in it's use of the statue of liberty icon. But we're talking about (among other things) a one line joke about the statue of liberty. This is, lest we forget, an encyclopedia. While our disk-space is vast, the attention that people have to focus upon any one article is not. The relevance to the actual statue of liberty of that one joke is nil. Nothing. Zero. While I'm all for accessaility and interlinking, we should also attempt for concise and meaningful writing. And, to draw not-to-terribly long a bow, where is the source for that quote? Recalling that anyone who adds material is responsible (per our policy on verification) for providing references for it's inclusion. - brenneman {L} 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the Simpson's quote is highly relevant. It speaks directly to US attitudes to immigration that are extremely newsworthy. It demonstrates the iconic use of the statue in popular culture. It adds meaning to the article (at least as much as the knowledge that Sioux Falls has a nine foot replica). Your "lowest common denominator" crack is insulting, as is your jibe about attention spans. The fact that you don't find it "encyclopedic" was clear after you "chopped" it. Your point about "concise and meaningful writing" is nonsensical. Nothing is more concise and to the point than items in a list. Finally, if you are now going to fall back on your usual WP:V canard, then I would suggest you start at the beginning of the article. Remove the Fussell quote since it lacks a source. Then remove every line in the article that is not footnoted. That will give you the thrill of removing most of the "meaningful" content. Also remove the comment based on OR personal communications. Alternatively- and here is a truly radical idea- why don't you start at the beginning and add some references-- JJay 12:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

JJay, please don't make everything a battle. It really doesn't have to be. We really can disagree pleasantly. The fact is that people want crisp, concise, focused writing. Go over to feature article land and you'll hear the cry of "tighten it up" almost non-stop. Balanced out by the cries of "too short" of course. But really, you don't have to flare up like everyone is trying to come the raw prawn with you. Anyway, I'll say it again: Please don't make everything a battle. - brenneman {L} 13:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, brenneman? You don't seem to be avoiding making battles. SushiGeek 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that. If you find battles unpleasant, then please avoid making edits such as this: [8], which is generally a prelude to war. Try not to use highly charged language such as "playing to the lowest common denominator" or "not of interest". Those types of bold statements of opinion only serve to insult the intelligence of people who contribute this type of material or find it of use. I'd also probably avoid complaining about references after removing numerous referenced items from the article. -- JJay 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
While you're at it, JJay, why don't you fly around the wiki telling newbies that when we say "Be Bold!" we're lying to them? Since when was boldness a sin? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 01:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing some unsourced items

As always, if a fact is important and widely known, someone, somewhere should have written about it and it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source that says so. If the Statue of Liberty is important in a movie or video game, published sources describing the game will have mentioned it. Finally, given that we have a List of movie appearances of the Statue of Liberty, only motion pictures in which the statue places a particularly important role need to be mentioned. The following items are removed as unsourced:

  • A teacher from Iowa named Jennifer Stewart entered a Statue of Liberty look-alike contest for the statue's centennial celebrations in 1986, inspired by a comment from a student that she resembled the statue. She won, and after moving to New York City, she parlayed dressing like the statue into a full-time career, appearing on the streets of New York and at corporate parties and promotions.{[citation needed}}

The following are removed as unsourced and also as unimportant (the statue is just functioning as a bit of local color, the plot is not "about" the Statue of Liberty... unlike, say, Ghostbusters II where the statue is a character whose walk through New York is integral to the plot and occupies five or six minutes of screen time.

  • The 1985 action move, Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins, contains a scene where Remo Williams fights against several bad guys in and around the statue and its scaffolding, while it was currently undergoing its renovations during that time.
  • In the computer game Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 when playing as the allies on the first campaign mission the opening scene shows Russian forces attacking and destroying the Statue of Liberty.
  • The 1995 film Batman Forever featured a clone of the statue in the harbor of the fictitious Gotham City. A helicopter operated by Tommy Lee Jones' villain character "Two Face" was intentionally flown into the false Statue in an effort to destroy Batman in the film's opening scene.
  • In the two-parter season four episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise, Storm Front, there is an alternate timeline where the eastern side of the United States is conquered by the Germans, with the aid of aliens. The opening teaser of part two shows a propaganda newsreel with footage of Adolf Hitler visiting New York and the Statue of Liberty, where he is given the key to the city.[1]
  • The film poster to the popular sci fi film Escape From New York depicted the severed head of the statue in the streets of the city, however in the film Liberty Island simply served as the security center for the island prison. (Seen after the explanation that the city has become a prision)
  • The animated television show Batman: The Animated Series features a similar statue for Gotham City, replacing the torch and book with a shield and sword. The series also showed that Gotham City sat on what would be Manhattan island.
  • In the beginning of the episode "The Red Dot" of Seinfeld, Jerry and George discuss how the statue was brought over from France: Jerry believes it was done in pieces, George that it was pulled over whole.
  • In episode 14 of the animated television show MASK, the Statue's stolen by the criminal organization VENOM. The MASK agents, heroes of the show, have to get it back before it's going to be blown to peaces.


Please, you don't really doubt this, do you? It's one of the symbols of the party..[9], [10], [11], [12], etc. Also see our article on Libertarianism. -- JJay 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing unsourced items has nothing to do with "doubting them." See the verifiability policy. Put the item back in the article with those references, please. They belong in the article, not here. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Re "see our article," the reliable source guidelines mention specifically that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. That means a link to another article is not a substitute for a source. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC) And, indeed, the article on Libertarianism asserts that "Many libertarians, including the Libertarian Party of the United States and New Zealand's Libertarianz Party, consider the Statue of Liberty to be an important symbol of their ideas...." but cites no sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the policy, which you and Brenneman are now abusing. If you really believed the statement to be false, you would have perhaps started by removing the large photo of the statue of liberty included in the Libertarianism article. The fact that almost every libertarian party uses the Statue as its symbol shoule be sufficient. Furthermore, anyone who knows how to use google can confirm most of the popular culture references that you are removing. The same can not be said for the Fussell quote and the numerous unreferenced historical statements of fact. Therefore, I'm sure you won't mind if I add the unreferenced tag to the top of the article as well as a few choice fact tags. Of course, that doesn't mean I doubt them to be true, but this is an encyclopedia...-- JJay 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted the Libertarian note with the references you supplied; I don't understand what your beef is.

You say "anyone who knows how to use google can confirm these references," they should do so and reinsert them. The verifiability policy says that the burden of citing sources rests on those inserting information... and you say that burden is negligible.

The tags you added to other sections are perfectly appropriate and in some cases long overdue. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note the edit time. My comment was made before you reinserted the text. However, my "beef" essentially involves hiding behind the "verification" policy to remove an entire section of the article based on personal distaste. If I removed every unsourced statement of fact from this article it would essentially be eviscerated. And what exactly would I have achieved? Particularly since I know that the article is highly accurate. I never said verification was a negligeable burden. I think it should be applied starting with the most important elements in an article and working down. And frankly, it is more important for our readers to know what work we have taken the Fussell quote from, particularly as it is the lead section, then to have a source that proves that Jerry actually discussed the statue of Liberty with George. From my point of view, this article is better with a long history section + pop culture references. We can debate how many should be there or what level of referencing is required. But arbitrarily removing them all is not the right approach. -- JJay 19:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As we were saying

Ok, we've still got items such as "The 1998 Nintendo 64 game Duke Nukem: Zero Hour features a level set in the statue." in this article. I'm reading consensus here as supporting wider removal of these sections. I'll start trimming them over the next couple of days.
brenneman {L} 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Source for Lazarus winning a contest?

Re:

The poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, the winner of a contest underwritten by the New York World,

This detail about the contest doesn't pop up instantly in casual Googling. It was added to the article in this edit by user Ghosts&empties

I queried User talk:Ghosts&empties#Emma Lazarus winning a contest about it.

Ghosts&Empties replied: "Look no further than the Wikipedia article on her. Fortunately, that article cites two references."

But unfortunately, of the three references cited in Emma Lazarus, http://www.phy6.org/outreach/Jewish/Lazarus.htm%7C gives a 404 Not Found; http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l#a1155 is a collection of her poems; and the third, http://www.jwa.org/exhibits/wov/lazarus/ says nothing about any contest, either on the cited page, or here.

So, I'm snipping the detail about the contest for the time being.

The latter page (and a number of other web sources) say "Emma Lazarus wrote "The New Colossus" in 1883 for an art auction "In Aid of the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund." While France had provided the statue itself, American fundraising efforts like these paid for the Statue of Liberty's pedestal."

It does not sound at all unlikely that the art auction might have been under the auspices of the New York World, because Pulitzer led the fundraising efforts to build the pedestal and that might well have been one of them. It is not clear what a sonnet would have to do with an art auction, so a contest also sounds perfectly likely.

Can anyone find a source for this detail? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I now think this detail could be wrong. See the material and the two references I justed added to The New Colossus. Lazarus was asked to submit the poem by a politician and fundraiser named William Maxwell Evert, in connection with and "Art Loan Fund Exhibition in Aid of the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund for the Statue of Liberty." Neither of the two books says anything about the New York World or about a contest. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tangentially, and for what it's worth, William Maxwell Evarts was a lawyer, diplomat, U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of State. This Library of Congress page affirms that "Emma Lazarus, who had worked with East European immigrants through her association with the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society, composed "The New Colossus" in 1883 as part of a fundraising campaign for erecting the Statue of Liberty." - Nunh-huh 19:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
THANKS. Yes, the Felder and Rosen book gives the name as William Maxwell Evert[sic]. I spent way more time than I should have trying to find out who "Evert" was and came up dry. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Superlative nature of the statue

I started to put this in, but gradually got decided that there were just too many claimants to being "largest statues" to deal with. Here's what I had at the point when I gave up. It was this page that made me decide that it was too complicated to deal with.

Guinness lists it as the "heaviest statue in the world" [2], but this probably depends on a restricted definition of "statue." (A 53-meter stone statue of Buddha at Bamyan, destroyed by the Taliban, was taller; and several projects to build larger statues are announced or in progress).[3]

I would assume that a statue made of solid stone has got to be heavier than the hollow Statue of Liberty, so I don't know quite how the Guinness folks arrived at their determination that it was the "heaviest." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeanne Fleming? No. Phooey.

A while ago--Revision as of 04:13, 3 September 2005--a User:Paul Klenk added a note about Jeanne Fleming:

The centennial extravaganza lasted three days and drew 12 million people, and is said to have been the largest public event in the world as of that date. It was produced by Jeanne Fleming, a internationally renowned celebration producer and artist whose work includes New York's Village Halloween Parade.

I trimmed it and put most of it into the Jeanne Fleming article.

I should have been more skeptical.

This source says it was produced by David L. Wolper[13]. Not quite sure where this website got their information from, but this needs to be looked into.

It just goes to show why we need source citations. The only source for Fleming's involvement is her faculty profile here[14]. Most likely it will turn out that she produced some small part of the event. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PHOOEY. No, she did not even produce part of the event. A search of The New York Times from 1984 to 1986 turns up only two mentions, one in reference to the Halloween parade. The other,

Pareles, Jon (1986) "Over July 4th Weekend, A World of Folk Music," The New York Times May 26, 1986, p. 10

refers to "The Harbor Festival Fair, not connected to Liberty Weekend '86, will offer theater, ethnic food... its artistic director, Jeanne Fleming..."

So, she was the artistic director (not the producer) of an event that occurred at the same time as, but was unconnected with the official Liberty Centennial Celebration.

And this article has said Jeanne Fleming "produced the centennial extravaganza" and it has said so since last September.

Phooey. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How about condensing some of these photographs into a gallery at the end of the page. This would help to eliminate the dead space and allow the users to compare and contrast the statue.--Gephart 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Vesperholly 06:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Memory Alpha link,[1] Star Trek Enterprise episode Season 4, Episode 02: Storm Front pt 2.
  2. ^ Guinness World Records. "Heaviest Statue".: "24,635 tonnes (54.31 million lb." (The Guinness site does not have any listings for "largest" statue or "tallest" statue).
  3. ^ a reclining Buddha 416 meters (1364.81 feet) long, with 60 meters [196.85 feet] between the highest and lowest parts of his body, said to have been constructed in Guifeng, China; a 150-meter Buddha planned for Kushinagar in northern India[2][3]; the Crazy Horse memorial at Mount Rushmore, when completed, will be 195 meters (641 feet) long and 172 meters (563 feet) high [4].

What about other statues of liberty?

There is a section for copies, but what about for statues of liberty that are different and not at all related to the one in New York?

I can think of one In Riga, Latvia [15] and I'm sure there are a lot more. Perhaps there should be another section. --Hellahulla 12:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Copper origin

The Nizhny Tagil page says that "In addition, the copper for the skin of the Statue of Liberty was mined and refined in Nizhniy Tagil.", and this one says "In the town of Vigsnes, near Stavanger, Norway, tradition holds that the copper came from the French-owned Visnes (note the missing 'g') Mine." So please check both pages. --193.56.241.75 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a source for the Nizhny Tagil theory and added it in the article. --NeoUrfahraner 10:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hostage crisis?

Wasen't the statue of liberty stormed by armed radicals sometime in the 70's? They held hostages for some 20hours. I saw a 2minute clip on the history channel but can't remember the name of the group. --mitrebox 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Fremansons

File:Liberty-plaque.jpg

So were is the roles of the freemasons in the article? according to the plaque, their role should be in the lead text. --Striver 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Compare: --Striver 07:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

statue of liberty

In the table of contents, on october 10th, There was a paragraph called description and it disappeared.I'd like to have it back in;83.114.198.236 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

spiked crown?

The first paragraphs say she is wearing a “spiked crown”. My understanding, and my aesthetic sensibility, is that the “spikes” are rays of light, which would fit with the Statue’s real name. The diadem of the allegorical Libertas never had these spikes. If the “spikes” are light, we have proof positive that light and fire can’t be sculpted -- though it’s not for want of trying. Seen purely aesthetically, the Statue is a failure; see as icon, she’s a huge success.

Some one tell me:

1. Is she wearing, under the diadem, a Phrygian cap, the symbol of liberty? 2. Is she treading upon a sickle and hammer, a memory of the 1871 Commune? 71.71.118.255 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a sister statue in Paris...

Actually, If I remember well, not a sister nor a replica but the original model which served as the basis of the one staying at Liberty Island —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.27.60.48 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

The national treasure movie says there are 3 statues. One in New York, one in Paris, and the last one in the Luxembourg Gardens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.146.93 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"First suicide"

In addition to fixing minor vandalism which has been there for a long time... "he bounced off the breasts of the statue..." I'm restoring the wording "the first suicide took place..."

That it was a suicide and that it was the first are sourced, to the New York Times article.

That it was the "only death" is not sourced. In all the years visitors have been climbing those stairs (when it was still possible), has not a single one had a heart attack? Did no workers die during the construction of the statue? Anyway, if someone can find a source for the statement that it is the only death, good; otherwise, let's not say it.

Similarly, I don't know of a source for it's being the only suicide, or the only death by falling.

I see the problem in that "first suicide" implies that there have been others, and if anyone can figure out a better wording it should be used. But as things stand now, all that we have from sources is that a) it was the first suicide, and b) we don't have any indication of whether or not there have been others. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the "first suicide" until there's a second. An opportunity awaits, apparently. --Wetman 10:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

I've added a symbolism section. This article needs one. Below is what I wrote (feel free to add anything that's missing):

Besides symbolizing liberty, The Liberty Statue also stands for the American Dream. Additionally, it represents the United States as a model nation, as in the phrase "a house on a hill, light onto nations." Each spike on the Seven-spiked crown denotes the seven seas or the seven continents, which tend to represent humanity as a whole. The torch embodies the meaning of enlightenment and guidance for the millions of immigrants seeking freedom from oppression. The broken shackles lying at Lady Liberty's feet confirm this view.[16] The tablet in her hand shows the date of the nation's birth (July 4, 1776), when the American people united for the pursuit of happiness and liberty. The calm expression of the face, along with the greenish copper hue, gives the viewer an impression of unshakable will - that it has weathered countless storms but still remains triumphant, forever aiding the poor and seeking the oppressed. --65.96.153.247 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but most of this can't go in unless you cite sources for the statements. I don't even think the phrase "the American Dream" existed at the time when the statue was being designed, and it does not seem likely that Bartholdi, a Frenchman, would have been symbolizing that rather than "liberty enlightening the world." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • P. S. The statements about guidance for the "million of immigrants" and the general references to immigration do not make sense, as the statue was not designed for the purpose of welcoming immigrants and was designed decades before the great wave of immigration referred to in Emma Lazarus's poem. That poem was not associated with the statue before 1903. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • P. P. S. Of course, if you can find something like speech by a President saying "the Statue of Liberty has come to symbolize the American Dream," or something like that, you can add it and cite the speech as a source. What you can't do is write about what the statue symbolizes to you, or what you think it symbolizes to others. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seven spikes represent the seven seas or seven continents?

You know, I'm beginning to doubt this.

There are numerous Web sources that say this, but they're all relatively recent, and they mention it casually and in passing. A search of the New York Times database for various combinations like statue liberty "seven seas" and statue liberty "seven continents" and statue liberty seven crown turns up only recent references, and fairly casual at that. The earliest I found was Freedman, Samuel G, "Better than New," May 18, 1986, p. SMA28, a long article about the 1986 renovation, which says "There was a telling moment, more so for its informality, on Dec. 5. This was the day when the last of the seven rays in Miss Liberty's diadem, representing the seven seas and the seven continents, was to be reattached," and goes on to tell about a moment of Franco-American fraternity.

Google Books searches, which can be very powerful--particularly in locating old material, which is what shows up if you select "Full View Only"--doesn't seem to have anything about this.

A seven-paragraph 1938 New York Times article which is entirely about the spikes--"Liberty Statue Loses Her Spikes As New Props Are Built For Them," July 21, 1938, p. 23--says nothing about their symbolizing anything in particular.

I find a surprising dearth of mention of earlier than this. I'd have thought I'd turn up something about Bartholdi intending this symbolism, but I haven't.

Most telling, Bartholdi's design patent says nothing about it, even though it goes on and on about "The arm is nude; the drapery of the sleeve is dropping down upon the shoulder in voluminous folds," etc. etc. What it does say is "The head, with its classical, yet severe and calm, features, is surmounted by a crown or diadem, from which radiate divergingly seven rays, tapering from the crown and representing a halo."

I think it is also suspicious that quite a number of the throwaway descriptions say it represents "the seven seas or seven continents," although Freedman's article says "seven seas and seven continents." You'd think it would be one thing or the other, wouldn't you?

I'm not sure quite what to do about it, but I'm beginning to be pretty skeptical about this. It sure has the flavor of something a tour guide might have invented in response to a question... a plausible speculation rather than a verified fact. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No Section on Words?

I may be mistaken, but doesn't the statue of liberty have the "Give me your tired ..." speech at its base (that may just be Ellis Island) - if it does a section should def. be added - or perhaps better yet a picture with a explaining caption. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You are referring to The New Colossus, a sonnet by Emma Lazarus, which is mentioned at the end of the second paragraph. Our article on The New Colossus gives the entire poem. I just added a sentence that for some reason had been deleted, noting that it has never been engraved on the base itself. Many people have the impression that it is, probably because it is frequently depicted that way in editorial cartoons. It is in fact engraved on a bronze plaque that is within the museum contained inside the base. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the cement used for the base?

The German entry lists the origin of the cement used for the base of the statue, maybe someone would like to translate that part and add it to the English entry? 84.56.158.86 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Miss Liberty

Isn't it nicknamed Miss Liberty or Miss Li? --84.20.17.84 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Irving Berlin musical

I hesitate to add to an "In Popular Culture" section, especially when there is a separate article, but doesn't Miss Liberty rate some kind of brief mention here? It's not one of Irving Berlin's more popular musicals, but it's about the statue, and even includes a musical setting of "The New Colossus". —Celithemis 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Inscription

Shouldn't the inscription be quoted in this article

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

It seems incredibly important to me to have this piece of information.

Yes it is a famous poem... I think it would be good for the article to have it included. Lord Metroid 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It is already mentioned through interwikilink! Lord Metroid 11:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Burka

i just read in a book on America's relations with the middle east, the original statue was going to have a burka, and would sit on the Nile. but since the UK pulled out of England they couldn't afford to pay for it. Is there any validity to that? i'll get the info on the book... Gavinthesavage 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"but since the UK pulled out of England"? Grammatically, that doesn't make any sense. Some of the concepts Bartholdi had made into the models depicted the statue in something like a Burka, but it's face seems to have always been on view. I'll have a look in my book on the statue and get back to you. -Kingpin1055 08:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

September 11 aftermath

The article attributed the statue's continued closing to fire-code violations and not terrorism concerns. I've edited this to indicate that this is the National Park Service's proffered explanation for the continued closure.

its pretty bad encyclopaedic practice

To have the title and the opening line be different, ey? --Ioscius (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by movement to New Jersey

Every couple of weeks, some ignoramus tries to move the Statue of Liberty off Bledoes (aka Liberty) Island and onto the Jersey shore. It's pretty well documented over on the Liberty Island page that the dry part of Liberty Island is owned by New York State. Maybe we can stop the vandalism by removing all reference to the statue being in New York by simply referring to its presence on Liberty Island? I tried boldly making that edit, and I already forgot reverted, requested discussion here. I represent that, short of educating every Noo Joisian about the topic, the best thing we can do is not rub salt in the wound. I mean, they already live in New Jersey -- we should cut them some slack. As the old SNL joke goes, "Keep New York City Clean [17], dump your trash in New Jersey." RussNelson 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Statue_of_Liberty/Archive_1&oldid=1146766882"