Jump to content

Talk:Statue of Liberty/Archive 3

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

Destroyed in "The Day after Tomorrow"?

I noticed that there is the sentence It is destroyed in the science-fiction films Independence Day, The Day after Tomorrow, and Cloverfield. I have watched The Day after Tomorrow and unlike in Independence Day where the statue was shown having fallen over and Cloverfield where the head is shown striking a building and landing on the street, in the film it is shown still standing although partially covered in ice and snow. I have confirmed the source used says it was destroyed in The Day after Tomorrow but am questioning if the statue being covered partially in ice and snow and still standing falls under the definition of destroyed. If nobody has any problems with me doing so, I intend to change the sentence on March 24 UTC-4 to say It is destroyed in the science-fiction films Independence Day and Cloverfield. Jesant13 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Beats me. As you might suspect, I went by the source and didn't watch the movie. I'll make the change and save you the bother.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. I actually went ahead and made some changes to the article. I deleted the reference to the source, I changed the sentence, I removed the message that was in the article, and I added two sources. Jesant13 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the info on Cloverfield may now be too much detail, this is all supposed to be rather summary since there are hat notes referring the reader to more comprehensive articles. I think possibly that should go.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at it again. I would go more or less to what was there before. The only reason we mention how the statue appears in Planet of the Apes is that we dumbed it down so as not to "spoiler" the movie. I'm not certain that the way the statue is disposed of is really relevant in the other films. Additionally, "Internet Archive" is not a publisher, it's "What Culture LLC" which I am very dubious is a high-quality WP:RS such as should be used in a Featured Article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I read the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and also looked at the page Help:Using the Wayback Machine which I've read before. Neither page said not to source the archive as a publisher, and from what I read I'm not convinced that What Culture isn't reliable, since the page I sourced even shows the statue with no head. I'd understand if there was no picture shown, but there is. Should the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and the page Help:Using the Wayback Machine be updated? Jesant13 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The "high quality" comes from WP:WIAFA, criterion 1c. I think the idea of the publisher field is to inform the reader who is responsible for the content, and the Internet Archive is not. None of these are big deals.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I read what you linked to and saw what you said. I decided to change the way I had added the two sources by using Template:Wayback which I successfully did. I also did it on the article Sonoma Raceway as I had added a source there earlier this year. Jesant13 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty is not located in Manhattan, New York.

The Statue of Liberty is on Liberty Island which is located in the Upper New York Bay surrounded by the waters of Jersey City, Hudson County. It is the property of the USA federal government. Happy USA Independence Day 2014! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gialyn (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See references 152 and 153: the original islands are part of Manhattan/New York, reclaimed land is New Jersey. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

slight edit to add specificity: "the base" -> "its base"

The resulting sonnet, "The New Colossus", including the iconic lines "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", is uniquely identified with the Statue of Liberty and is inscribed on a plaque in the museum in the base.[81] Kennita 21:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC) The resulting sonnet, "The New Colossus", including the iconic lines "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", is uniquely identified with the Statue of Liberty and is inscribed on a plaque in the museum in its base.[81] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennita728 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's actually very specific since the breeder has been told exactly what "the base" means but as it seems harmless I won't revert. Possibly it's a typical reaction of those who look for one fact in the article and don't read the whole thing--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Worth?

What is the value, say, if it was scrapped? Wouldn't it be wiser to scap it than burning millions of $$$ every year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.190.208.136 (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wiser to sell your children into slavery than burn hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise them? Wouldn't it be more profitable to butcher all the remaining tigers and sell the meat? 24.19.238.217 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

English

In the fourth paragraph, the statue "was found to have deteriorated" ... or to be deteriorated ???? Than you to native English speakers to correct the article. Crocy (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is "have" incorrect? It sounds good to me. I can ask other editors to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
"Have" is not only fine, it's the better choice. 24.19.238.217 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Statue is not located in NY

you need to edit this entire wiki about the statue. as proven by the supreme court the statue is legally located in New Jersey in Jersey City zip code: 07305 1 liberty island, jersey city NJ. this is a landmark of New Jersey and NOT new york. she is located on NJ soil and within New Jersey's legal maritime borders. which means anything located within those boundaries are the sole property of it's subject state. you're doing New Jersey residents a great injutice and this non factual article is highly offensive to them. please edit the location to provide the accurate legal address. thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardnewjersey (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Statue of Liberty#Location and visiting and sources quoted therein. It would appear that the island is an enclave, legally part of New York. Favonian (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much. The status of Liberty Island has never been tested in the courts. I imagine if it was, the same answer would come as for Ellis: That the original island is New York, and that any filled areas would be part of New Jersey. There are mentions of filled areas expanding Liberty Island, but that would not affect the statue, which stands within Fort Wood, which has been there for 200 years. New Jersey could sue, and probably small parts of Liberty Island might be deemed New Jersey, but it is not like Ellis Island, which was massively expanded with fill. I don't have figures, but I have seen no indication in maps that much filling has been done, although there is mention of some. In summary, the statue stands on land that was unquestionably recognized as part of New York in 1834, but some parts of the island (especially near the wharves) could, if contested, be deemed part of New Jersey. As I'm sure New Jersey is fully aware of this, I imagine they don't want to sue and are settling for zingers such as displaying the statue on the upcoming New Jersey entry in the state quarters/national park site series.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
As for the postal address, per the NPS web site, it was Liberty Island, NY NY 10004. It is possible that the postal service now routes mail through New Jersey, but that does not affect the legal status of Liberty Island. There are a number of places where mail is routed to a point out of state or handled by an out of state post office; for example, there are a number of places where the Mississippi River has shifted, so a Tennessee farm may be served by a Missouri post office, for example because the land is still part of Tennessee even though it is on the "Missouri side". However, it would be less practical to have a Tennessee post office handle it. There are other examples that I could bore you with but nuff said.
If you have further questions, I will do my best to answer them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The original poster seems highly confused. The supreme court ruled concerning Ellis Island...not Liberty Island. Either way, it isn't property of either state as both are property of the federal government. Here is what they say about Liberty Island: "Is the Statue in New York or New Jersey? The Statue of Liberty is on Liberty Island, federal property administered by the National Park Service, located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York. A pact between New York and New Jersey, ratified by Congress in 1834, declared this issue." from NPS
          • If it is a federal property, then doesn't this mean that the property is not only NOT in New Jersey, but ALSO NOT in New York, for being federal land? The fact that it is a federal property has nothing to do with the issue. But, that people keep arguing with the fact that it is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York does not mean that it is not in New Jersey. The property can be maintained by New York for reasons of the National Park Service without it being located in New York, just because New York's Federal Park Service attends to it, but it is still located in New Jersey. Maps--maritime and all others--put the Statue in New Jersey. Read a map. And, the reason it's contested is merely because it is on the New Jersey side of its border with New York. Also, while a recent court case may have declared the issue, the place of the island on which the Statue stands has been a fact for longer than that court case that we here claim dictates where the Statue rests--on the New Jersey side of the border. Further, a court case that decides where Ellis Island lies does not mean that the Statue's island is not located in New Jersey, especially since a researcher of the Ellis Island Case would need to read the arguments rather than merely the outcome of the decision which may only pertain to Ellis Island, because the arguments that led to the decision of Ellis Island may also include statements about where the Statue of Liberty stands. (Unsigned by Arthurblenheim)
Land ceded by the states for forts and so forth remains within the states and NY explicitly reserved rights with respect to Bledsoe's Island. The argument applicable to Ellis Island by NJ that was successful in the Supreme Court is that NY filled in the river to expand the island, and that the riverbed was NJ territory and so whatever was filled was NJ. However, the statue does not stand on fill but within the walls for Fort Wood, which has been there since 1808. So the arguments with respect to Ellis do not apply to the Statue of Liberty (there may be some portions of Liberty Island which are fill, I've read that there was filling near the ferry docks, but that would only be a small portion of the island and NJ has not chosen to litigate the matter. It would not affect the statue).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Concerning Ellis Island: "Is Ellis Island in New York or New Jersey?: Since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1998, Ellis Island, which is federal property, belongs within the territorial jurisdiction of both New York and New Jersey depending upon where you are. The Main Building, housing the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, is within the boundary of New York State. Since the island was expanded over many years to its current 27.5 acres, this expanded area is now mostly within the territory of New Jersey. First and foremost, the entire island remains federal property, as it has been since 1808." from NPS
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though they are federal property, they are still part of the states, and such things still matter for purposes of sales tax and also New York reserved the right to have legal process served within the federal reservation. I am hopeful that a thorough answer will cut off the next "IT'S IN NEW JERSEY!" poster, which are only going to increase when that quarter comes out in a couple of years.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014

In the pulp culture sections it lacks that is was seen and used by the ghostbusters in Ghostbusters II to get into the museum by using slime and music to get it to walk and swing the arms down on top of the musuem.

168.166.80.139 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Additionally, please provide a realiable source for the change. — LeoFrank  Talk 12:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Information Regarding Ellis Island Operation needs to be updated

The article mentions that Ellis Island is still closed after Hurricane Sandy "The statue and Liberty Island reopened to the public on July 4, 2013, though Ellis Island remains closed.[153]", however, as shown in multiple sources, Ellis Island is reopened. [1] [2] Passing it along since my account is not auto-confirmed yet and thus cannot edit it. Aelon51 (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. And thank you for finding the reference. Cannolis (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014

under fundraising, 2601:2:2600:7AB:FC5E:43B2:5D24:A017 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)The congress of 1884 was republican majority,the house was demorcratic. So the article says the congress at that time would not agree for aproiations so the project failed. The congress has to aprove it the article blames it on demorcrats but it was the republicans in control of the senate at that time just look it up.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. per 48th United States Congress, republicans held the Senate while democrats held the House. Congress can refer to either of these bodies. However, the source cited doesn't mention either party at all, just that an appeal was made, so I have removed the reference to the party entirely and tagged it for citation needed. If you have a source that blames the republican congressmen for blocking the action, provide it and I will behappy to make the change. Cannolis (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No additional citation is needed, so I've removed the tag. You want more information, that is all. I'll check additional sources to see if I can find it, I don't necessarily still have all my refs around.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

The shackles at the bottom of her feet were a symbol of America abolishing slavery after the Civil War came to an end. The reason for the Declaration of Independence in her hand was a statement that in fact "All men are created equal..." 207.242.52.150 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Bartholdi was only French, not Franco-Italian

Bartholdi was by no means Italian or of Italian descent, but only French. This is accurately stated on his English page as well as on the French related pages. "Bartholdi" is not even an Italian name. It stems from the French first name "Barthélémy".Rapmar (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Colossus of Rhodes

The Statue of Liberty is more than likely to be designed after the Statue of Helios (Sun God in Greek Mythology) at Rhodes, which was a colony and fort also once held by the Knights Templar. The Design was likely implemented by the Knights of Malta and Freemasons, coordinating with the Vatican and helping design and finance it. The statue was a symbol of liberty and resurrection of the Knights Templar through the Knights of Malta and Freemasons in America, symbolizing freedom for the Knights Templar from persecution.

"The Colossus of Rhodes (Ancient Greek: ὁ Κολοσσὸς Ῥόδιος ho Kolossòs Rhódios)[1] was a statue of the Greek titan-god of the sun Helios, erected in the city of Rhodes, on the Greek island of the same name, by Chares of Lindos in 280 BC. It is considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It was constructed to celebrate Rhodes' victory over the ruler of Cyprus, Antigonus I Monophthalmus, whose son unsuccessfully besieged Rhodes in 305 BC. Before its destruction in the earthquake of 226 BC, the Colossus of Rhodes stood over 30 meters (98 feet) high,[2] making it one of the tallest statues of the ancient world.[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.55.242 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Manhattan

Liberty is one of several islands which comprise the borough of Manhattan. Since the eponymous Manhattan Island is the main island, and likely best known of the islands of the borough, it is misleading to mention it without a clarification. It obfuscates rather than elucidates, it is confusing. That said, a clarification of the legal territorial/jurisdictional status of Liberty Island does not belong in the first sentence of an article about the Statue of Liberty, and perhaps not even in the lead at all. The information is in the info box and more fully explained location and visiting section. Adding qualifiers, i.e., part of the borough, further dilutes the impact of a first sentence, diverting attention, and frankly, raises more questions that can or should addressed at the beginning of this article. Djflem (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just as soon not have it. I agree. The Manhattan is misleading. If we were to have anything, I'd rather say "New York County" rather than Manhattan. But I think we can do without it. I did not feel justified in removing it so I tried to tweak it a bit to make it work better.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Location

You indicate that the State of Liberty is in New York.....Check any map... 100% a Jersey Girl.... please change your info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.148.21 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That point is thoroughly addressed by the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Liberty Island

Liberty Island

I have uploaded a new photo of the island I took last month and think it would be proper for use here. --talk→ WPPilot  17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, added.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty & One World Trade Center

I found a great photo of the Statue of Liberty and One World Trade Center, do you think It would look good somewhere In the article? CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit dubious. It's somewhat duplicative of the 9/11 one without the historical value.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see @Wehwalt:. Maybe It would be a good photo for the World Trade Center article. I just suggested the photo here, but you said it's dubious. Thank you for replying! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No trouble, and nothing personal. As there are many images of the S of L, we have to be selective.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Connection to the Babylonian deity Semiramus

Both figures seem awkwardly similar. Is there any link between this governmental figure from Nimrod? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that I've ever heard. You might want to research the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

typo

"As agreed in an 1834 compact between New York and New Jersey" should say "contract". 178.202.130.44 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with legal jargon, but from the source the terminology appears to be correct — MusikAnimal talk 22:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It's correct as is, see interstate compact.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Depictions Section

Why no reference to GhostBusters 2? =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:C80E:0:3854:AB6A:3010:CE10 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We weren't trying to be complete, just to give a representative sample. It would be too easy to get bogged down in detail here. There are sub-articles that cover this sort of thing. We can only cover so much in this top-level article without it being too long and detail-heavy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

this makes no sense

Last sentence of the introductory information says: "Public access to the balcony surrounding the torch has been barred for safety reasons since 1916."

That's a neat trick! There is no reference to this that I can find. Does anyone know what the year should be here? ThoHug (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement is in the body of the article, supported by reference 103. Statements in the lede are summaries of the cited article body, so no references are used in the lede. The arm has indeed been closed since 1916. Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor seems, in my view, to be going overboard on removing links and in reverting changes. The set of edits are here. It seems unwise to delink the borough and city it is located in, the president who dedicated it, the president who made it a national monument, and similar. The only explanation given is WP:OSE which is true, but doesn't justify the changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

""the borough and city it is located in, the president who dedicated it, the president who made it a national monument, and similar" none of those have anything to do with why an internal link should be included. You seem to be confusing them with references. Handpolk (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we need the links, even the link to NYC, which is often omitted. But in this instance it is justified imo, as the statue is iconic of that city. Links to past presidents add obvious value, especially for logged-in readers, who can hover over the link to get quick facts such as term of office and date of death. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Inclusion of internal links isn't about it's relevance to the topic, it's about whether the reader will be aided by being able to click over and learn more about that. Linking New York and the National Park Service 5-10 times, do not help the reader. However linking to old US Presidents most people don't know much about does help them. Most people probably don't know much about Rutherford B Hayes, while everybody knows about Barack Obama. Handpolk (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that Obama should be unlinked. Widely known public figures are not one of the items listed at WP:OVERLINK as being among things not requiring a link. "United States" is usually not linked any more. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
From your link: "a link should appear only once in an article" -- National Park Service, among several others, have more than one link in the article. Those should be reduced down to one. Handpolk (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Also in your link "the names of major geographic features and locations" -- thus removing New York and similarly well known places. Handpolk (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
There's exceptions to a link only appearing once. "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." The NPS appears four times, because it's linked once in the info box, once in the lead, once in the body, and once in the citations. I already stated that I disagree with removing links to New York City (and by extension New York State) as the statue is iconic to the area and the links therefore add value. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Something being iconic in an area is not a reason to internal link it. It's not a reference. Do not confuse it with a reference. And your listing all the places NPS is linked implies you agree with the overlinking, yet you offered no reason why. At a minimum, the link in the body should be removed. Handpolk (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood me: I do not think the NPS is overlinked, as it is linked once in the info box, once in the lead, once in the body, and once in the citations; this is permitted per the manual of style. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I understood you fine. The manual of style does not say to have one in the lede and one in the body. One of those should be removed. Handpolk (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It's usual practice to link once in the lead and once in the body. Some people read the lead and nothing else, so links there are highly useful. "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, ..." -- Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:OSE is an essay not a policy or guideline so as such doesn't carry much more weight than any personal opinion. I agree that too many links are being removed and for the wrong reason/reasons. The editor needs to slow down and given the concerns with his edits engage on the talk page. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC))
An essay that includes personal opinion carries more weight than somebody who isn't even stating an opinion, like you. Do you have an argument against WP:OSE that you think justifies including links on the basis of 'but other links are here.' Handpolk (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me reiterate my opinion. It isn't a good idea to remove multiple links while citing an essay. as reason. I also suggested you bring this issue to the talk page since the edits were contested. You did. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC))
If you have no rebuttal to that essay, then it's a fine reason. Twice you have not stated an opposing opinion. Handpolk (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
In terms of linking Obama, remember that Wikipedia is not US. North American centric so we can't assume everyone who reads WP knows who Obama is and especially knows much about him. The reader is aided by going easily to the Obama article and extending their knowledge which is just what links are for.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC))
Ok then Obama gets an internal link, even though it's worthless to the reader. What about the dozen or more other examples of blatant overlinking? Handpolk (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Handpolk: You're wrong. An essay carries no more weight than any editor's personal opinion. There's a simple argument against the edits you made: you did too many in one go. This is a Featured Article and a lot of editors have reviewed it before you did, making it unlikely that many editors would agree with such a sweeping set of de-linkings as you carried out. Now if you want to discuss here removal of particular links, then you may find more support.
For example, New York City: links are meant to help the reader by leading them to other articles that are germane to the current one (and NYC is certainly relevant), but we tend not to link well-known geographic places, the sort of place that an English-speaking visitor would likely be already well-aware of. On the other hand, as Diannaa points out, NYC is especially important to this article (and the Statue is Liberty is iconic to NYC). Nevertheless, the NYC article is linked three times in this article and that may be considered overlinking, which dilutes the value of more useful, nearby links.
So, any given link may have a complex series of pros and cons. Take a look at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll for the variety of opinions that the issue of linking dates once threw up. In any case, once you've made your bold edit and it's been reverted, then it's time to start discussing the changes you want to make, with the aim of convincing others that those changes would improve the article. It's always much easier to achieve that if you're prepared to look for common ground and accept some compromises - maybe you'll find agreement that New York City should be linked only twice (lead and infobox, for example). If you start by debating Wehwalt's reasoning that "It seems unwise to delink the borough and city it is located in, the president who dedicated it, the president who made it a national monument, and similar", rather than just rejecting it out of hand, you might find some consensus along the way. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
"You're wrong." No, I'm not. Pointing out that it's an essay is not a valid reason to ignore it. The editor never offered an opposing view to that essay, neither did you. So until somebody actually gives a valid reason why the essay is wrong -- what the essay said, that I agree with, stands.
"you did too many in one go" see WP:BOLD. I saw problems, I fixed them.
"NYC is especially important to this article" that's not a valid reason to internally link it. It's not a reference.
"rather than just rejecting it out of hand" those are invalid reasons to internally link something. I'm not sure how else I could address that argument. Handpolk (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I did offer an opposing view. I started this discussion. And WP:UNDERLINK makes it pretty clear you link when there are "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question ... proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." For all my confidence in education, I would not rely on kids today knowing who Grover Cleveland was. And he is mentioned twice. He dedicated the statue, and we quote his oratory. Could be people will want to know more about him. Are there specific links you think shouldn't be there?.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Disingenuous to bring up Grover Cleveland when we agree on that. You want New York and Barack Obama to have an internal link. Using your argument, are you saying that the education system is so bad that students don't know who Barack Obama is? Or what New York is? Handpolk (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Handpolk: You're not only wrong, you're incapable of taking advice. That's a recipe for a very short career on Wikipedia and I see that you've already gone a considerable distance to exhausting the community's patience. Nobody's ignoring the essay, but it's not policy or guidance, so nobody here is going to give any more weight to it than your opinion, and you might as well drop that stick. How about looking again at WP:BOLD: "it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly." If you're not sure what 'recklessly' means, take a look at "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." In addition, the convention is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, revert back and behave like a child". If NYC is especially important to this article, then that is a reason to link to it, see WP:LINK: "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. When writing or editing an article, it is important to consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information ...". A reference, on the other hand is a source which verifies the accuracy of our text, not a link to further information - that's a wiki-link. Got it now? You say that those reasons are invalid; I say they are valid, as does Wehwalt. So what makes your assessment right and the assessment of two other editors wrong? When you're prepared to accept that Wikipedia isn't built on the premise that you are always infallibly right, you might make some progress in finding consensus. Why not try it? --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware it's an essay and what that means and doesn't mean. Until somebody can actually refute the arguments in it, rather than simply pointing out that it's an essay, the arguments in it stand. So far not a single person on this page has actually done that. Handpolk (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolution

I just looked and a lot of my edits are in the current version of the article. If people are not proposing rolling those back, then I'm fine with it as is. Though there is probably some double and triple linking that could be fixed. Handpolk (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added back a few but also removed a couple. I will admit there is room to do so. This is a highly trafficked article and I don't have time to undo this sort of thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty influenced by Colossus of Rhodes including 7 Rays

MODERATORS - Please add the following to this article... Anyone looking at depictions of the Colossus of Rhodes will think of the Statue of Liberty which was influenced by this member of the Seven Wonders of the World. Lady Liberty has 7 'rays'/spikes sticking out from her crown that are generally said to symbolize the 7 Continents and Seven Seas. It's probable that New York's statue being patterned after Rhodes' statue means that the Colossus also had 7 rays atop his crown. Since the Colossus was a statue of the Greek titan Sun-god Helios, those '7 rays of light' would have symbolized the 7 Classical Planets that could be seen with the naked eye: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:BD89:3619:82D7:61A8 (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is to be added it needs to be well sourced. Carptrash (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If it is added unsourced, it will be reverted. Bartholdi wrote extensively about the Statue. Suggest consulting his works if the OP wants to follow up. A book of his is linked and should be available to read if they are in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph

"Bartholdi was inspired by French law professor and politician Édouard René de Laboulaye..."

To say that Frédéric_Auguste_Bartholdi was inspired by Laboulaye contradicts the text on Bartholdi's page - and the odering of this paragraph suggests the inspiration predates the other movements (this is also contracticted on both of their pages). It would seem that this text should be rewritten to take into account the chronology of events, to maintain consistancy within highly relevant linked articles and to imply the same thing as is being stated. I'll happily retract this suggestion, however, if a source can be cited that the original is true (none seem to exist at present, however. *<:@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.196.107 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

He was inspired by Laboulaye. Whether or not the dinner party ever took place, I don't think there was a question about the inspiration bit. That doesn't mean L. invented the idea. If you have an idea for language...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Location

I do not want to change anything yet, because before I do, I want to discuss on the talk page to avoid controversy. Why does the page say the SOL is in New York? It is located in Jersey City, New Jersey. Jordandlee (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Liberty Island is a part of New York state. It happens to be entirely surrounded by New Jersey waters, but it is still part of New York state.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dashes need to be regularized

Some sections have em dashes and some have en dashes: they should all be the same. Perhaps those more familiar with the article could decide which. Modal Jig (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed the en to ems. Modal Jig (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2016


Please delete the sentence: Historian Yasmin Khan, in her 2010 book about the statue, states that the firm of Japy Frères, copper merchants, donated copper valued at 64,000 francs (about $16,000 at the time or the equivalent of US$ 356,000 in 2016).[40][41]

The sentence is completely false. In my 2010 book Enlightening the World: The Creation of the Statue of Liberty I neither refer to the donor firm by name nor give a value for the copper sheets donated.

The information must have come from another source.

Thank you, Yasmin Sabina Khan

Ysb1979 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed.I'll have to look into how that happened. I enjoyed your book.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Liberty without breast - Liberty on 1-dollar coins and on Swiss coins

Hi, watching this giant woman's statue of "Liberty" it seems striking that there is hardly any breast or bosom respectively there is no breast or busom at all with this giant woman's statue. Using the proportion standards 90-70-90 or so this statue should be corrected getting it's right bust size overcoming purism and virginism of the religious "Christian" leaders.

By the way this Liberty statue can be seen on old 1 dollar coins - and Swiss coins of Switzerland (this is Rothschild's money island in continental Europe) have the same standing Liberty on their coins until today just renamed as a "Helvetia" - in the same clothes and always almost without breast or let's say, completely without.

This is pure virginism of "Christian" leaders playing with virgins - as satanists play with virgins in their rituals until today. This virginism should be revised and a real bust size in healthy proportions should be put. Perhaps there is more people with this meaning and this remark could be included in the article.

Have a nice day, Michael Palomino, poli-historian

Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this, the design for the Swiss franc coins to which you refer is from 1875 and is thus older than Bartholdi's design. I think we'd need sources for what you have written.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Error in Quotes

How did an article pass muster with the misuse of quotes? Scare quotes are always incorrect, and double quotes within double quotes are incorrect. 107.184.249.239 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you give an example?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The idea, as well as design and construction came from a group of Freemasons and the initial planning fundraising and campaigning were indeed funded by it. The stone for the plinth came from Scotland and the American people did not want to contribute. These are facts missed in your detail Robert de sable (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Original design

Was the original design based on the image of an Arab woman? 66.61.82.12 (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources don't say so.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
There's been some further news on this:
Deepred6502 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, then we should add a sentence or so on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This thread seems to me a mixture of gotya and SOFIXIT. Why? Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This is revisionist history of Muslim Brotherhood proportions. The lady was none other than Libertas, the Roman Goddess of liberty. Waving a magic wand, and declaring 2000+ years of history obsolete without a shred of actual evidence is beyond laughable. 184.68.61.66 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Those sources all seem to point back to the same Op-ed published by the Daily Beast as the original source of this idea. An op-ed is not a reliable source for anything other than the authors opinion. When reading that source, it states that the original design was for a statue to replicate the Colossus in Egypt that was called “Egypt Carrying the Light to Asia.” None of the articles definitively establish that Bartholdi used this same design for “Liberty Enlightening the World.” The op-ed author states that Bartholdi used the same idea and adapted it, but there is no authoritative source on Bartholdi's thoughts or process. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There is plenty of existing information indicating where his original ideas stemmed from. His influence stemmed from his visit to Egypt where he admired the colossal sculptures guarding temples. There is also already existing information in this very article regarding his attempt to secure the project in Egypt at the Suez Canal, for some reason nobody put in the title of the work which was 'Progress' or 'Egypt carrying the Light to Asia'. They are undoubtedly in very close resemblance of one another. However, per this very article, and many others, he supposedly ultimately used his mother Charlotte for the face. Here are the scultures for the Egypt project which are at the Bartholdi museum: http://secretlifeofladyliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/7.5-maquettesSuezinmuseum.jpg MeropeRiddle (talk)

Exact location

Perennial question long since settled
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Where exactly is the statue located? The article says in Manhattan, New York, but Google maps has it on the west side of the state line between New York and New Jersey, placing it in New Jersey. Grandma Roses (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is in an enclave of New York territory within New Jersey territorial waters.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It is in New Jersey. New York tries to claim it but it's in Jersey. Bubbab1971 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted link to 2017 BBC article

Why was this bibliographic citation deleted? It is relevant and from a reliable source. -- M2545 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ELs are to be kept " minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". The statue has been used politically many times. Are we to take the most recent? If we do there are recentism and POV issues. I would prefer only to EL to major events involving the statue, which this really wasn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

TFA reruns

Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No real issues. I've maintained it over the years.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2017 Mark Twain addition

Mark Twain was asked to contribute to the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund Art Loan Exhibition (1883). This fund raised money for the Statue of Liberty. Emma Lazarus and Walt Whitman were other notable contributors.

Twain's Contribution: You know my weakness for Adam, and you know how I have struggled to get him a monument and failed. Now, it seems to me, here is my chance. What do we care for a statue of liberty when we've got the thing itself in its wildest sublimity? What you want of a monument is to keep you in mind of something you haven't got - something you've lost. Very well; we haven't lost liberty; we've lost Adam. Another thing: What has liberty done for us? Nothing in particular that I know of. What have we done for her? Everything. We've given her a home, and a good home too. And if she knows anything, she knows it's the first time she ever struck that novelty. She knows that when we took her in she had been a mere tramp for 6,000 years, biblical measure. Yes, and we not only ended her troubles and made things soft for her permanently, but we made her respectable - and that she hadn't ever been before. And now, after we've poured out these Atlantics of benefits upon this aged outcast, lo! and behold you, we are asked to come forward and set up a monument to her! Go to. Let her set up a monument to us if she wants to do the clean thing.

But suppose your statue represented her old, bent, clothed in rags, downcast, shame-faced, with the insults and humiliation of 6,000 years, imploring a crust and all hour's rest for God's sake at our back door? - come, now you're shouting! That's the aspect of her which we need to be reminded of, lest we forget it - not this proposed one, where she's hearty and well-fed, and holds up her head and flourishes her hospitable schooner of flame, and appears to be inviting all the rest of the tramps to come over. O, go to - this is the very insolence of prosperity.

But, on the other hand - look at Adam. What have we done for Adam? Nothing. What has Adam done for us? Everything. He gave us life, he gave us death, he gave us heaven, he gave us hell. These are inestimable privileges - and remember, not one of them should we have had without Adam. Well, then, he ought to have a monument - for Evolution is steadily and surely abolishing him; and we must get up a monument, and be quick about it, or our children's children will grow up ignorant that there ever was an Adam. With trifling alterations, this present statue will answer very well for Adam. You can turn that blanket into an ulster without any trouble; part the hair on one side, or conceal the sex of his head with a fire helmet, and at once he's a man; put a harp and a halo and a palm branch in the left hand to symbolize a part of what Adam did for us, and leave the fire basket just where it is, to symbolize the rest. My friend, the father of life and death and taxes, has been neglected long enough. Shall this infamy be allowed to go on or shall it stop right here?

Is it but a question of finance? Behold the inclosed (paid bank) checks. Use them as freely as they are freely contributed. Heaven knows I would there were a ton of them; I would send them all to you, for my heart is in the sublime work! Mark in Hollywood (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: No specific request to edit the article. If the intent is to request that the above text be added to the article, a reliable source is required. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty - location

The Statue of Liberty and Liberty Island (while a federal property) are well within the state boundary of New Jersey, NOT New York. See Google maps. I'm probably doing this incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodell (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the article. It's an outparcel of New York surrounded by New Jersey. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Photo request

Does anyone have a photo of the original statue of Liberty Enlightening the World held in the Musée des Arts et Métiers, for use on the museum page and the Statue of Liberty page? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Define "original" in a project that seems to have evolved over a period of around 5 to 10 years. But here is an 1875 terracotta model in Lyons, and a bronze (date unclear) that is exhibited in Paris. Other images at the French Wikipedia, or at Commons.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.248 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2018‎
Thank you for the images. Yes, original would be the first rendition of the statue, and the page says Bartholdi made a first model of his concept in 1870. So wondering if the 1875 Lyon piece is the oldest existing model and not the Paris bronze, and if so the Paris museum article is mistaken. The 1875 terracotta isn't mentioned in the Lyon museum article. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

Please change 'Lessups' to 'Lesseps' 2601:647:4281:5CF:5954:C445:F985:CE35 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2018

[3]

change

Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

to

GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES YEARNING TO BREATH FREE Evan.panagiotopoulos (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't shout, see WP:ALLCAPS.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/nyregion/ellis-island-welcoming-visitors-once-again-but-repairs-continue.html?_r=0
  2. ^ http://www.nps.gov/elis/planyourvisit/hours.htm
  3. ^ http://greenlining.org/blog/2014/guest-blogger-statue-liberty/

“welcoming sight to immigrants arriving from abroad”?

- by air? Or from Central America??

Yes, because of the Statue’s ubiquitous representation in popular culture and its success as icon of the values it was conceived to declare.

But the article needs to say that. Because not a lot of immigrants now have their first sight of the Statue as they stare across the bows of their inbound ship!

As it stands, the text at this point comes across as quaintly unreal and outdated - even though what it says is, on second thought, accurate.

And New York Harbor, too, though no longer a main immigration route, remains iconic of the US’s *tradition* as an immigrant destination.

The change confers a nuance to the Statue’s icon-value. It now symbolises welcome *as tradition*.

I don’t know the article well enough to amend it accordingly. Anyone else?

- SquisherDa (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
We could certainly say that it BECAME a welcoming sight etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes! We should! Do U want to do it? or shall I?
But it won’t deliver on the point that the Statue is now iconic of the *tradition*.
To do much with that we’ll need a source . . maybe one of the article’s existing sources says something relevant? Does anyone know the sources well enough to say?
- SquisherDa (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I need a French man

I’d like to know more about how the idea developed; ie. giving a “building” to another country!

Why did so many Frenchmen think it was a good idea? And, without diminishing their generosity... what was in it for them? Why would they think giving a giant costly statue to another country would inspire or rally the French?

Was the re-creation of the Olympic Games, part of the thinking? Did it have anything to do with German unification?

Did it rally them? What was the effect in France? Especially in the 1880-1914 period?

And (apart from helping out in the World Wars) has America ever felt obligated to return the favor?

MBG02 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The Crown of Liberty

Was it not based on the spiky crown of the Colossus of Rhodes? There is no mention of this in the article. 94.118.219.51 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Statue was originally designed for the Suez Canal in Egypt.

Bartholdi did not craft the basic design of Liberty specifically for America. As a young man, he had visited Egypt and was enchanted by the project underway to dig a channel between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. At Paris world’s fair of 1867, he met with the Khedive, the leader of Egypt, and proposed creating a work as wondrous as the pyramids or sphinxes. He then designed a colossal woman holding up a lamp and wearing the loose fitting dress of a fellah, a slave, to stand as a lighthouse at the entrance of the Suez Canal. The Egypt deal fell through, so Bartholdi decided to adventure to America to pitch his colossus. Emirzian (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

See the existing page Egypt Carrying the Light to Asia. And please consider joining us to edit too, it's everyone's encyclopedia! Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Museum image

@Wehwalt: In this edit you wrote, partial rv. We've had an image of the staircase before, possibly even this image. They are not too good at thumbnail. But you removed the torch image. Was that intentional?

Anyway, I think an image of the new Liberty museum may fit in this article. There are a few images I took, which are in c:Category:Statue of Liberty Museum. epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my screwup, sorry. I've reverted. By the way, you don't happen to know what they've done with the plaque with the Lazarus sonnet that was in the old museum? I had to remove references to it being in the museum in the base once they opened the new place. Still need a RS but at least I'd know what to search for.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I don't recall seeing it. The NY Post says the museum has a replica of the plaque. I don't know if it's the same plaque as in the old museum though. epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019

Add to 'Depictions' section: The Statue of Liberty is depicted in the 1685-piece LEGO Architecture Set, Statue of Liberty (Set Number 21042), released in 2018. HomeImprover (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's good to know but I think it is the sort of thing that would go in one of the articles dedicated to listing cultural depictions of the S of L. This article, for space and other reasons, is sort of limited to the top ones and despite the importance of LEGO, I'm not certain it qualifies.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Libertas

This is a sculpture of the goddess Ishtar. The torch is one of her symbols. Libertas looks entirely different. She wears a simple cap and holds a rod. Almond Plate (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

But Bartholdi's name for the statue wasn't Ishtar Enlightening the World ... I suspect he wasn't above mixing symbols or freely borrowing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Nor was it Libertas Enlightening the world, it was Liberty Enlightening the world. Almond Plate (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Are there sources discussing this matter?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Many. So far I've seen nothing we can use but I'll keep searching. Note however that there is no source in the article for Libertas. Almond Plate (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The source on that seems to be Sutherland, pp. 17–19.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems so. But Sutherland only suggests it, ignoring the crown and the torch, and doesn't provide a source herself. Almond Plate (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The statue is named Liberty Enlightening the World, and portrays a powerful woman in Roman clothing breaking free of shackles and walking forward that the sculptor named 'Liberty'. It is obviously his portrayal of the known-Goddess of Liberty, Libertas ('Liberty' in latin). That she carries a flame fits with the name, Liberty lighting the way for the expansion of liberty by literally enlightening. Portraying Libertas doesn't mean all of the ancient symbols must be used, or can't be added to or combined with the use of symbols by other God or Goddess representations. The artist named the woman 'Liberty', not 'Ishtar' or 'Susie'. Sutherland seems enough to use to state the obvious. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
What source makes you think that the artist gave the statue a woman's name? Liberté is a noun. It applies just as much to Ishtar, the goddess of personal freedom, as to Libertas. Almond Plate (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I am close to a source. Bartholdi's biography is often mentioned to contain the text: “he caught a vision of a magnificent goddess (Nimrod’s Semiramis — Isis or Astarte), holding aloft a torch (of Illuminism) in one hand and welcoming all visitors to the land of freedom and opportunity”. Astarte is another name for Ishtar. I don't have access to the biography so I can't check this, but maybe someone can. Almond Plate (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2020

Hi! In section "Construction", steamer "Isère", I suggest to add an internal link to the relating article in French. Syntax could be: Isère (Please note I've been registered for several weeks in French Wikipedia under the name "Boncoincoin" Boncoincoin (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Boncoincoin). Boncoincoin (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Glowing

L Kennedy: The statue of liberty has been said to subtly glow during peak moonlight hours.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.53.178 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

It is famous for the freedom that is show's and how tall it stands and the culture that it has — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.16.36 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

In the preview that is shown when when you hover over the link to this page, the image shown is the map of Manhattan with the location of the Statue of Liberty marked. It would be better to show a picture of the statue itself, as that is a better representation of the subject. Thanks, --Thegkl (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The preview-hover-cards use some algorithm to select which image to show, usually it's the first image. It makes mistakes occasionally but it's difficult to influence it. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks for looking into it! --Thegkl (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Change NY to NJ in the first paragraph for correction Mikew42007 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Liberty Island is in New York. Acroterion (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Design change

Recently documentation emerged of a change in the statue's design to make the arm more prominent, at a late stage of construction.[1] This is work writing up for the article. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. A bit speculative though.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus in lede

I see there has been an addition to the end of the lede that the statue has been closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Is this really something that should be included in the lede? Seems much too transient to me. Ergo Sum 03:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I would think that, if it's left, it should be removed once the statue reopens.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
We did something similar in 2012 after Hurricane Sandy went through, closing the island for a period of time, then removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Change "liberty island" to "Ellis island"

Someone incorrectly edited this page previously Maddie1234567890123456789 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If you refer to the location, the statue is located on Liberty Island not Ellis Island. If you refer to other topic, please be more specific. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Newspaper image in "Dedication" section.

User:Wehwalt, I searched for, cleaned up, uploaded, and posted the newspaper because the sources in the "Dedication" section do not seem to be directly verifiable (no link for one, links to incomplete online versions for others). Conversely, my showing a newspaper with a direct link to a readable and appropriately detailed file at Wikimedia Commons makes verification easier, and, further, illustrates the notability of the dedication. Your edit comment that the newspaper image is "not worth including" isn't policy-based. Please reconsider your deletion. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement that there be links to books. We do not add primary sources in such a manner, because at thumbnail size you can see nothing of the content. I would have no objection to a link to the underlying content being added to the External Links section though.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Request Edit

I would like improve this article by adding the following citation: "On June 16, 1885, Captain Joseph Henderson a harbor pilot, ran across the French steamer Isère about ten o'clock on Tuesday night, about ten miles outside the Sandy Hook lightship. She was unable to cross the bar and remained outside until the next morning, when she was able to anchor at Sandy Hook. Henderson was taken on board as he was expressly selected to escort the Isère into the New York Harbor to Bedloe's Island."[1] Greg Henderson (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Isère Arrives". New York Herald. June 18, 1885. Retrieved January 24, 2020.
comment @Greghenderson2006:, for the editors not familiar with the discussion on COI/N; please briefly explain your relationship with the Joseph Henderson. Graywalls (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of COI, I think the proposed edit gets a bit far afield from the subject of the article. Also the fact that this is from an 1885 newspaper doesn't make it appear it is something with lasting historic value.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Please tell me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be of historical value to know who was the first to greet the ship that was laden with the Statue of Liberty?--Greg Henderson (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Has it been picked up on by modern histories of the Statue? Historians judge such things better than I pretend to.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Not done, not sufficiently relevant. Could not find a single modern source mentioning this. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
And the old source is the dead dude's obituary, whose focus is to talk about what the guy did. It has no place in being a source for introducing contents into an important article like the Statue of Liberty. Graywalls (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that reference #197 goes to www.newmoney.gov which is now directed to www.uscurrency.gov. I see that there is an web archive link, but it may be beneficial to update with current primary source: https://uscurrency.gov/sites/default/files/downloadable-materials/files/en/10-2006-present-features-en.pdf. (AnAmericanJewel (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC))

Page preview image

The page preview image algorithm should be changed to ensure that an image of the statue itself appears on the page preview, currently, a map of New York City appears on the page preview. Helenteds (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Suicides

I had removed[2] the sentence about the "only" suicide as inaccurate and UNDUE. There have been at least two suicides,[3] and we want to be sure this sensitive information is DUE.Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

New edit leaving the main information about the suicide.[4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Addition of the Great Seal of France.svg in the Design, style and symbolism category as an example of a representation of the goddess of liberty in 1848.

Representation of the goddess of liberty on the Great Seal of the French Republic, adopted in 1848, by Jacques-Jean Barre.

Azure021 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done We already have too many images in that section.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Cleaning up the image placement to take wide browser windows into account

Ovinus: (Relatively) recent editors: Greetings and felicitations. The current placement of images (and tables, and similar objects) works until a browser window width of about 3300 pixels, at which point it quickly becomes very messy, especially in the "Measurements" section. Is it worth my trying to come up with a solution for this, or is this size considered too wide to worry about? —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel nothing, but thanks for the invite. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. IMHO this page should undergo a complete WP:FAR. It was promoted almost 11 years ago? Wikipedia has higher FA standards than it did in 2010. The super-abundance of redundant images is just one symptom of the problem. BusterD (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't bother frankly - it looks okayish to me, with a default size of 400px. how does it look on mobile view? That is what we should worrying about these days. A mini-gallery or two might help. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems fine on my screen too. Mobile has changed Wikipedia, maybe not always for the better but at least it gives easier access (I've never used it). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say the thing to do is clear out a bunch of the images that have been added over the years, and if they are significant enough to keep, put them in a gallery.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I just realized that all but the first editor's user name is hidden. I was going to use Template:Ping, but it's too late now. <sigh> I'm quite open to a gallery or two, but the specifically problematic images (the ones in the middle to lower sections) are well distributed. Johnbod: I just checked, and it looks find to me in mobile, but that's not generally a problem. And what about users like myself, who are on the other end of the monitor size spectrum?
This is what it looks like to me (in literal descending order): 1, 2, 3.
(Because New York City as a Wikipedia topic is very heavily edited, I wanted to get input before I did anything.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to thin out the images some.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Wehwalt: That looks much better to me, except for moving the statute height comparison from the "See also" section to the "References" section. From my viewpoint, the three images in the "Depictions" section still overrun the "See also", and I'd prefer that the latter two (or all three) be placed in a "mini-gallery"; my suggested solution.
Why don't you play with it? The depictions images need to be near that section as they are directly relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
<puzzled> More than I already did with my suggestion? </puzzled> —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
DocWatson42, I mean go ahead and do it. That way, if adjustments are needed in your view, you can go ahead and make them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I just did so, and included a minor adjustment to the top matter as well. Comments, anyone? —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Armature?

Someone needs to explain what is meant by "armature". Bhami (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've linked the first use of "armature" to Armature (sculpture). - Station1 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

Add sentence after the other sentence talking about the oxidation of the copper. The added sentence should say, "This is also the case in Minecraft after the newest snapshot." -Notch Minecraft. NOTcHMINEcRaFt123132 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Has all the asbestos been removed?

Arminden (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Remove the line "..., a gift from the people of France to the people of the United States,..." from the first paragraph. The Statue of Liberty was NOT a gift, the US actually paid MORE for the statue than the French did. zac (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Cost

Wehwalt, my sentence about the cost is very important and is after a sentence about costs. There is discussion throughout the article about costs but my sentence gives the overall total as mentioned in many sources. If you don't feel it's best in the lead then let's put it lower in the article.Foorgood (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Put it in the body under fundraising, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes sir thank you for the compromise I will do so in half and hour.Foorgood (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Verb tense

Hi can you start the sentence with the Statue of Liberty was a - from the people 69.123.129.170 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As the statue still stands, "is" is more appropriate I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Location

Although the only ferries to Liberty Island are from NY, Liberty Island is in New Jersey. 24.107.13.228 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a perennial misconception. Liberty Island is an outlying portion of New York, surrounded by the waters of New Jersey. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention that there are, in fact, also ferries from New Jersey. Station1 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
As the article says: As agreed in an 1834 compact between New York and New Jersey that set the state border at the bay's midpoint, the original islands remain New York territory though located on the New Jersey side of the state line. Liberty Island is one of the islands that are part of the borough of Manhattan in New York. It may be in NJ waters, but the island itself is NY territory.
Also, there is a ferry service from Liberty State Park in NJ. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

Deine mudda 2A00:20:B000:C26B:B5C9:800A:A559:10D7 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Access to the Crown

The article needs revision on access to the crown. It says both that the crown is open (Closures and reopenings (2001–present) section) and that access to the crown is no longer permitted (Location and access section). The National Park Service site has a page (Visiting to the Crown) with details of how to book a visit. DavidCane (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit history, but the Location and access section now says that tickets to enter the crown are available. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Destination of explosives in 1916 disaster

I came to the page via the article about the Black Tom explosion in 1916. That article says, with sources, the explosives were destined for Russia, not Britain and France as this article states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion JeffArchinal (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

That Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey not New York City. 2601:89:C701:E750:565:604D:9F23:7ACC (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It ain't.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

The book that the Roman goddess holds in her left hand is a tabula and the Statue of Liberty was gifted by the French. 67.180.238.176 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Handicap terminology outdated

Could someone with edit privileges update the following to remove the offensive term handicapped. Maybe change to “disability access”:

“A modern elevator was installed, allowing handicapped access to the observation area of the pedestal” Thejeremybrown (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a recommendation in the Manual of Style? Surely this is something other articles have encountered. Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
“accessible access” might be better. Check out the terminology section of this Wikipedia page - Disability Thejeremybrown (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Changed to "disability access". Accessibility access might lead someone to change it feeling it sounds redundant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I’m not sure if the term handicapped is still common in the USA - but sounds very outdated and offensive from an Australian perspective. Thejeremybrown (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Thejeremybrown, In the US at least, "handicapped" is still common and doesn't have the same offensive connotation that it has in Australia, per MOS:DISABILITIES#Political correctness and the euphemism treadmill . "Disability access" or "wheelchair access" are good alternatives in my opinion.
@Wehwalt, while I'm not aware of anything in the MOS per se, MOS:DISABILITIES does say that "disabled" is favored among disabled people. I have no problems with your edit. (I forget if the elevator was installed after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was passed, though.) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

I want to turn The copper statue, a gift from the people of France, was designed by French sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and its metal framework was built by Gustave Eiffel. into The copper statue, a gift from the people of France, was designed by French sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and its metal framework was built by Gustave Eiffel. Cleter (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So you are suggesting a link, which would be a redlink, to copper statue? That's the change? Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
no Cleter (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: The change is the addition of links to the nonexistent article Copper statue and the article metal – this falls squarely under WP:OVERLINK. Tollens (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw

Chains were not a symbol of abolition. They were a symbol of breaking the chains of oppression and tyranny. 2601:803:4301:66A0:B404:C3D5:2A57:C866 (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Chains were not a symbol of breaking chains. Straining or broken chains are the quintessential symbol of abolition, although not always with specific reference to the racialized slavery of the Americas. — LlywelynII 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Mom

I get that it's less important if it has become generally accepted that she isn't the basis for the statue (although are there no images of her at all?) but her name should match the one given on the sculptor's own page. — LlywelynII 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No depictions of the statue's original color?

There are no photos / drawings / paintings, etc of the statue's original colour? All photos in this article depict the statue as green, and there are no color artist depictions of it's original color. Do they not exist? This is why I came to the article to see this. Disappointing.

EDIT: Found this information: "The Statue's copper has naturally oxidized to form the outer patina or green coating. Upon completion in 1886, the Statue of Liberty was more of a traditional brown color like an American penny. It took about thirty years for the Statue of Liberty to fully oxidize and form a patina. " from https://www.nps.gov/stli/faqs.htm

I have never seen any color photo or artist rendition of the statue of liberty being "a traditional brown color like an american penny" in the "thirty" years it took to change color... Why? 73.78.188.203 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an 1886 painting which doesn't show the bright shiny new penny copper color except on the flame holder and the Declaration of Independence tablet. I have no idea why, except as an artistic statement to draw attention to those items. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Practically speaking, colour photography did not really exist in time to capture "the statue's original colour". While there were some methods in the mid-1800s, they were experimental--generally confined to laboratories and prohibitively expensive and cumbersome. Autochrome, considered to be the first practicable method of colour photography, began commercial production in 1907. This was too late; per the article, "the copper’s shiny metallic surface began oxidizing upon assembly [1885], quickly turning the exterior into a dark brown mineral coating called tenorite" and "by 1906 [the green patina] had entirely covered the statue". Illustrations, however, do exist. Эlcobbola talk 15:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Liberty's head and crown was exhibited in 1878, and the exhibition of the arm and torch also occurred at least seven years before assembly, giving the copper the time needed to acquire tenorite. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but the rest of the skin wasn't exposed that way, and the patina looks even. Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not walking

@Randy Kryn, I thought you knew better than edit warring without providing any sources; the only one that's in the lead says nothing about her walking. She's obviously resting on her left leg, and if she tries to move forward she'll fall. (try it yourself) The posture is quite common in classical sculpture. Ponor (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ponor, what's she going to do next, play hopscotch? I provided a source that you asked for to say she was walking (and not, as you insist, standing on one leg, yoga perhaps), so please strike the bit about edit warring. She's breaking the chains by moving forward, not by mind control Uri Geller-like. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
not walking
I mean, you know how much we value /www.statueoflibertytour.com/blogs/statue-of-liberty-meaning-what-she-stands-for as reliable sources. She stepped on the chain, her upper body is slightly rotated, her left leg is straight below her left shoulder. That's a classical standing posture, no one can walk like that. Ponor (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
walking
sleeping
That's the official tour site for the Statue of Liberty, a source I provided and then you removed it and accused me of edit warring which I asked you to strike. I will again ping Johnbod (apologies, I ping you too much but not my fault you're an expert on these things) who will know classical from a modern 1886 statue walking while breaking her bonds. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
What about this picture that seems to depict the right foot almost vertical, which doesn't strike me as a standing position, rather walking? Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
People, please. Reliable sources (ideally, of what the author's intention was, not someone's interpretation) or it's plain bad WP:OR. She's stepping on the chain like someone would on a snake, not letting them go. This is classical contrapposto on a neo+classical sculpture. Many examples of it everywhere, including the linked classical sculpture article. Or Colossus of Rhodes. Or... Ponor (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I hope she doesn't trip, standing on the chain and all with her toes. Thanks Wehwalt, a nice image from an angle that's not often seen. Glad this wasn't brought up a couple of days ago, as Ponor, you do realize the fact of her walking forwards and not striking a ballerina pose was duly reported to the world on the July 4 Statue of Liberty feature article summary, which was exposed to over five million readers. Aside from that, I like your guess, that she's stepping on the chain like it's a snake, good metaphoric image, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This image implies that she is not stepping on the chain, as her shoe and toes are flat to the ground showing no indication of a chain beneath them further up the shoe (the statue portrays only a portion of the shoe and toes). Have never noticed before how much good detail there is of the right foot's shoe's design in this image which can be greatly expanded with a few clicks, and how the show is clasped together. But notice that it is of fairly flat construction and only shows minor bending, it is not very flexible, which also implies that the shoe of the left foot is not stepping on anything. Aside from all of this, thank you, Ponor, for an interesting discussion, and no, we cannot let OR and opinion appear in the text. Are the options being discussed that she is either walking forward, and by doing so broke the chain, or is the chain being crushed beneath her left foot, and do sources cover this topic with any clarity? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
on your toes
A little less sarcasm and a little more reliable sources would definitely help in any discussion, if I may say. Since you're the person who introduced the ideas: what are the sources you used, may I ask?
I'm visiting my library next week, I'll bring a few myself. Patience, please. Ponor (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
As for my WP:OR, half jokingly because I (we) really don't know, I don't think that she, as an obviously white French lady, freed *herself* from the chains. She's a goddess, who enlightened the World, so people would abandon slavery. Ponor (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing all of this up and for pursuing confirmation, and who knows, you may be right when sources are checked. I can't recall why I added it but have the impression it had been somewhere on the page already although I may be wrong. My sarcasm comes from having this as an idea I've never read before, that she's standing or balancing on the chain, which isn't affirmed by photographs. Then look at this photo - quite the stride. OR, as for her personification, it could mean that she represents all humanity and, as humanity, is stepping away from her chains. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, been away. Personally I'd go with the site, attributing the statement if you like. There are a wide variety of contrapposto poses, some of which imply a dynamic sense of movement by lifting the back foot - much favoured for statues of Roman Emperors, as in the Augustus of Prima Porta. This would be a relatively uncomfortable standing pose to hold for long. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ponor, I've reverted your edit because you are adding cited material in the middle of other cited material without adjusting the citations, and you are making it impossible for the reader to ascertain what is cited to your new sources. I am glad that you got this material, but if you are going to break into cited material with new material cited to a different source, you have to comply with WP:V, perhaps by replicating the source immediately below. Another means of doing it is to add a citation adjacent to the one below, but that's less ideal because you can't tell what's coming from which source.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wehwalt, mind showing me where I did that? I put my refs as close to the added material as possible, that'd be the "The sun is pretty big,[1] but the moon is not so big.[2]" example of WP:CS. I'm sure we can sort this out collaboratively, as it's only a few well isolated statements that I've added. Ponor (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Of course. You added "With her left foot she steps on a broken chain and [[shackle]],{{sfn|Hayden|Despont|1986|p=45}} That reference can now be taken to cover "she holds a torch above her head with her right hand, and in her left hand carries a tabula ansata inscribed JULY IV MDCCLXXVI (July 4, 1776, in Roman numerals), the date of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.".
You added "In 1856 he traveled to Egypt to study ancient works,{{sfn|Hayden|Despont|1986|p=24}} That source would be taken to cover "Given the repressive nature of the regime of Napoleon III, Bartholdi took no immediate action on the idea except to discuss it with Laboulaye. Bartholdi was in any event busy with other possible projects; "
You added "the engineers were faced with a lack of detailed drawings and documentation, as well as major structural changes in prior decades.{{sfn|Hayden|Despont|1986|p=22|ps=: ''the statue had been changed—and sections even mutilated'')}} That source must cover " In 1982, it was announced that the statue was in need of considerable restoration."
It's not much. But I'd like it either fixed or your assurance that if you examined the reference in question, WP:V would be satisfied. We've kept this a FA for almost fifteen years and that means being strict when it comes to sourcing.
Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wehwalt, I don't think you're right. A reference added in the middle of a sentence applies only to the first part of the sentence, per example I mentioned in WP:CS. So what do you think I/we should do here? Split the sentences? Ponor (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably the best thing to do is to make sure everything you've put in the lead section is covered in the body of the article, remove the citations you've added to the lead, and for the two additions I've mentioned outside the lead section, reproduce the cite immediately following and put that before the text you've added. For WP:CS, read the part under "Keeping citations close". Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
"Keeping citations close" is exactly what I'm talking about (adding material within the same sentence). Unfortunately, there was a problem with some paragraphs that were once probably under one reference, but as more refs were added it's unclear what the source was. Ideally, every sentence should have a ref. For example, the Napoleon III statement appeared to be referenced by University of Chicago PDF, but there's no mention of Napoleon III in it. The statement might be from Harris, but I'd like to double check. Ponor (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
As an observer, here are my two cents:
  • If multiple sentences are supported by the same reference, you don't need to put the reference after each sentence, per WP:CONSECUTIVECITE (it's certainly allowed, just optional).
  • However, once you add a reference in the middle of a passage, this doesn't apply anymore. You might need to add another reference, or copy an existing reference, to maintain text-source integrity.
For example, if you have something like The sun is a star. The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.[1] and all three sentences are supported by reference 1, you only need to cite reference [1] at the end of the second sentence. But if I now add a second reference after "The sun is pretty big", then it's not really clear which of the references cites "The sun is a star", hence I'd personally put a reference after "The sun is a star".
In practice, what I'd suggest is something along the lines of what Wehwalt said. For example,
−
Given the repressive nature of the regime of [[Napoleon III]], Bartholdi took no immediate action on the idea except to discuss it with Laboulaye. Bartholdi was in any event busy with other possible projects; in 1856 he traveled to Egypt to study ancient works,{{sfn|Hayden|Despont|1986|p=24}} and in the late 1860s he approached [[Isma'il Pasha]], [[Khedive]] of [[Egypt#Modern history|Egypt]], with a plan to build ''Progress'' or ''[[Egypt Carrying the Light to Asia]]'',<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Statue of Liberty and its Ties to the Middle East|url=https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/danh_vo_labels.pdf|publisher=University of Chicago|access-date=February 8, 2017|archive-date=April 20, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150420224510/https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/danh_vo_labels.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
+
Given the repressive nature of the regime of [[Napoleon III]], Bartholdi took no immediate action on the idea except to discuss it with Laboulaye.<ref name="UChicago Statue of Liberty"/> Bartholdi was in any event busy with other possible projects;<ref name="UChicago Statue of Liberty"/> in 1856 he traveled to Egypt to study ancient works,{{sfn|Hayden|Despont|1986|p=24}} and in the late 1860s he approached [[Isma'il Pasha]], [[Khedive]] of [[Egypt#Modern history|Egypt]], with a plan to build ''Progress'' or ''[[Egypt Carrying the Light to Asia]]'',<ref name="UChicago Statue of Liberty">{{Cite web|title=The Statue of Liberty and its Ties to the Middle East|url=https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/danh_vo_labels.pdf|publisher=University of Chicago|access-date=February 8, 2017|archive-date=April 20, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150420224510/https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/danh_vo_labels.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
– Epicgenius (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, stuff has been added that shouldn't have been. I'm doing my best not to let things get worse. Thanks for your offer to help with Harris. Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Statue_of_Liberty/Archive_3&oldid=1245215872"