Talk:Statue of Liberty

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. — Llywelyn II   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. — Llywelyn II   21:11, 15 June 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)
 * , 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)
 * Statue-Augustus.jpg
 * 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)


 * 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 (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, 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,, 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)
 * Satiro versante - Da Prassitele -370-60 aC- - Copia romana cropped.jpg
 * 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)
 * , 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, 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, 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. 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, – 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)

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)

Copyvio
"According to Reader's Digest, the copper’s shiny metallic surface began oxidizing upon assembly, quickly turning the exterior into a dark brown mineral coating called tenorite. This tenorite and oxidized copper then mixed with the sulfuric acid in the air to create the green color seen today." is a direct copy-and-paste copyright violation of the source. Isn't there a better source for this anyway? John (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say cut the passage, that the original FAC wording, though it doesn't mention tenorite, is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've replaced that with a source which mentions verdigris, a more relevant explanation. John (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

End of slavery
@Para Clark you reverted my edit, which was an attempt in WP:NPOV because a high quality source explicitly says it is unlikely that the statue represents liberation of slaves. Even the NPS page (who's the author?) doesn't explicitly say that the sculpture itself commemorates liberation of slaves, still not liked by many at the time, only that the two Frenchmen fancied the ideas. If sources, given your interpretation of the one, disagree in views, we cannot pick sides. NPOV violation is a serious issue. Also, none of the sources say this *is* Libertas, not even our article further below, some only say Libertas might have been an inspiration, among others. Ponor (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)