# Talk:Brooklyn Bridge

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Helen102016.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crystalb19. Peer reviewers: Byronprincipe.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.  Peer reviewers: Danielleelbaum, Khan.saqib01, Sadhia.Meem06.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epicgenius and Kingsif: The bridge deck height of 133' above MHW cited in the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission application of August 24, 1967 is, it appears, the most current readily available dimension for the navigational clearance of that structure.  There is (or may be) a more recent measurement, perhaps on a US Government navigational chart based on NAVD 88 (see below), but I am unable to turn one up online.
The LPCA figure of 133' is based on a survey known as the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) (NGVD 29).  It superseded any prior measurements, such as that made when the Brooklyn Bridge was completed in 1883 and published as 135' in the 1914 edition of The World Almanac & Book of Facts formerly cited at the BB article.
NGVD 29 (and measurements based on it) have themselves been superseded, replaced by the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), a Tidal Datum based on an 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle (and well overdue to be replaced by one based on a subsequent cycle already several years underway, the Datum of 2022 [1]).
If anyone can find a navigational clearance for the BB based on NAVD 88 it would take precedence over the dimension in the LPCA.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius and Kingsif: Guys, I have found the most current possible reference and dimension for the vertical clearance of the deck of the Brooklyn Bridge.  It is off the current NOAA National Ocean Service Coast Survey navigational chart of the Hudson and East River between 67th street and Governors Island, last corrected October 1, 2019: [2].  It gives the navigational clearance of the bridge as 127'.  (And even lists a temporary dimension of 110' beneath its movable repair platforms.)  So that is the official dimension from the low point of the bridge deck to Mean High Water (itself established by the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), and the basis for all depths, soundings, and elevations on the map).  I will make the appropriate change and citation at the main article.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiuser100: Thanks for the find. I think it may have something to do with different, more accurate methods of measurement, as well as sea level changes. In any case, this puts a whole new perspective on the height of the span. epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius and Kingsif:.  A change of 2' over a century due to more accurate methods/technologies and sea level changes, I could definitely see that - and expected we would (or already had, from 135' to 133').  A figure of 127' - which is unambiguously on the NOAA nav chart updated through this past October - I did not see coming.  And can't explain.  But indeed anticipate a couple of inch change with the arrival of the Datum of 2022, which uses satellite-based GPS and sophisticated gravimetric modeling rather than the "intermediate" technologies (of advanced manual measurement, carried out "boots on the ground", available prior to 1988).  Which includes some (accelerating) sea level rise due to climate change.
According to Wikipedia's article on Air draft real time navigational clearance is now being measured in selected areas via laser, and accessible via wireless link to ship captains and harbor pilots.  This, as you know, can be mighty important on very large and tall vessels.  The ginormous for its day USS Forrestal (CV-59), arguably the US' 1st supercarrier and largest ship ever at its commissioning in 1955, was designed so its two folding masts could clear the Brooklyn Bridge (and pass under the 135' Manhattan Bridge) en route to the then still important Navy Yard at Wallabout Bay .  It's a bad day for everyone when they don't and things go crunch.
Today's supercarriers (cruise ships, and container ships) are much, much higher, well in excess of 200'.  I enjoyed watching once an entire fleet arm steam into San Francisco Bay from a vantage near Seal Rocks, with a score of escort ships parading under the Golden Gate Bridge as the tide fell, waiting the synchronized arrival of, if I recall correctly, the massive USS Enterprise (CVN-65) at low tide, which slowed and lollygagged for a spell while its mast was stepped before venturing beneath the 220' Golden Gate.  You could imagine every person on board holding their breath while everyone on shore gaped, as it did not seem possible to us at Lands End it would fit under, so pronounced was the optical illusion of our line of sight.  And never does from onboard.  Admirals lose stars, or stars and anchors, when someone goofs.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The lede claims that "it is one of the oldest roadway bridges in the United States." Since the oldest, the Frankford Avenue Bridge was built in 1697 and the Kingston Bridge (Kingston, New Jersey) in 1798 (7th oldest according to this website), I get the feeling that there were plenty more constructed before 1883. What to do? A {{cn}} seems a bit harsh. In the third para: "Only vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic traffic are permitted, with commercial vehicles being banned." I would suggest "Only private vehicular...", and delete one of the "traffic"s, which seems to have escaped the notice of the the GA reviewer. MinorProphet (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@MinorProphet: Thanks for the comments. Yes a {{cn}} would be kind of harsh, and a bit wrong (the correct tag would be {{disputed-inline}}). I removed that because it obviously is not true, and not cited in the body. I believe Tea or poison? resolved your second concern about repeated "traffic". I really should've gotten that to WP:GOCE, since I wrote the lead on the fly. epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
After re-reading the intro, may I say what a pleasure indeed it is to read a lede that others may heed and take as a creed. >MinorProphet (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the Roebling suspension in Cincinnati is an older steel wire suspension bridge. It was completed in 1867 and is the model for the Brooklyn Bridge. Built by John Roebling. Same designer as the Brooklyn Bridge. The first was the Wheeling Suspension Bridge opened in 1849. Reference Wikipedia.
Comment moved from the article to talk. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, thanks for the catch. Have fixed that now. epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor trimmed a link about Joseph Henderson, stating that it was unreferenced.  However, the second reference given says this:

Captain Joseph Henderson, a Sandy Hook pilot, was the  next   witness called. He testified  as to  the difficulties  masters  of ships  would experience  in  bringing   their  ships  under   the   bridge   when completed.

Perhaps there was some other reason for trimming the link TEDickey (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tedickey:, It was inserted by a Henderson family member who has been going around looking for excuse to insert Henderson contents into the article for what appears to be more for promoting his family heritage more so than improving the encyclopedia. There is a discussion at COI Noticeboard. Graywalls (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a video I took of Brooklyn Bridge in 2019. If anyone thinks it is suitable for the article do please place it wherever may be appropriate. Anne (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've positioned the video on the article now, but it might need adjusting R or L. Anne (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Under the Caissons section of Construction under History, I've added a quotation from Frank Harris to better convey the human experience of the working conditions. I've also added "the bends" as the commonly known term for decompression sickness at the time. Relevant citation here: 
Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if this is not the correct way to make this proposition. I am missing information about the architect. It was Wilhelm Hildenbrand I think somehow it should be mentioned.

This isn't correct.  As described in the article the bridge was designed by John Roebling, with further work by Washington Roebling.  Hildenbrand was a draftsman who worked for Washington Roebling. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I like this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.25.236 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 

In two locations in the article, the 1922 ban on motor vehicle traffic over the bridge is described. In both cases, the next section discusses motor vehicle traffic on the bridge over 25 years later. At some point, clearly, the ban was lifted, but I don't see a mention of it. This crucial piece of the narrative - which I know nothing about or would add it myself - should be included. MicroProf (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@MicroProf, thanks for bringing this up. The ban was lifted on May 12, 1925. I cannot believe that I forgot to add that before. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I just finished David McCullough's The Great Bridge. The caisson fire and the "Great Blowout" were two separate events. Both of them did occur in the Brooklyn caisson. Unfortunately, I have already loaned away the book and cannot look up the details of each event to correct the text. I will do so if I can find another source. Mark (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like we should have some mention of John McCarthy, who repeatedly sold the bridge and made the "have I got a bridge to sell you..." phrase famous. Some stuff here. Matt Deres (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps it could be added to this sentence: For example, references to "selling the Brooklyn Bridge" are frequent in American culture, sometimes presented as a historical reality but more often as an expression meaning an idea that strains credulity. George C. Parker and William McCloundy were two early 20th-century con men who may have perpetrated this scam successfully, particularly on new immigrants. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The Cables section of the Description references historical records, applicable to the bridge during construction. But all cables were replaced in 1986 according to Deterioration and late-20th century repair section. Do new cables have the same characteristics? The same about trusses in the Suspension span section - specified 6 trusses, but 2 of them were removed during reconstruction. Vicpeters (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I can't find any sources mentioning that the dimensions of the cables were changed, even during the 1980s renovation. As for the trusses, I've fixed that. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Several potential attacks or disasters have also been averted. In 1979, police disarmed a stick of dynamite placed under the Brooklyn approach, and an artist in Manhattan was later arrested for the act". The specified event occurred on March, 31, according to NYT. The artist was arrested for another event, happened on August 2nd, 1979 (see Bomb Device Found On Brooklyn Bridge by NYT). Vicpeters (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed this. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Earlier today, an IP user made dozens of edits to this page, significantly changing the layout of this page. On the whole, while there may have been some useful additions in there, it's extremely hard to determine what was improved because there were several changes that I don't think were helpful:

Info from the "rail traffic" section was moved up to the general "history" section. While this may have been meant to keep historical info in one place, it also made a mess of the history section, because the history of the rail line was intermixed with the history of the bridge.
The info about the Supreme Court's 1883 ruling on the 1876 lawsuit was moved from the "Opposition" section to the "1880s to 1940s" section, just after a sentence about public transit. I don't think this is helpful, because the "lawful structure" ruling doesn't make sense unless you know that this was related to the 1876 lawsuit.
The resulting "1880s to 1940s" and "1940s to 2000s" sections were super long, with over 10 paragraphs each and no subsections. Several paragraphs were also combined to make very long sections. I do not think this helps readability at all.
At least two paragraphs from the "rail traffic" section were duplicated in the history section.
The edits introduced three entirely unsourced statements. As this is a WP:GA, I have removed these per the WP:V policy. These statements must not be re-added without a reliable source, in accordance with WP:V.
There were also some spelling errors that I had to fix.
As such, I've made some changes in order to reduce repetition and confusion. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Why though? GamedudeTB (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. KOLANO12  3  19:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I just explained why in my comment above. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:::But the other articles state rail construction/improvements in the main history section. GamedudeTB (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet. KOLANO12  3  19:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and I think the rail history in these articles should also be split to their own section. The main history section should be about the bridge structure itself, rather than the history of the rail services that ran across it. Thr main history section could summarize major aspects of the rail line's history (e.g. when it was constructed and demolished), though the rail service patterns should remain separate. Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

https://gothamist.com/news/citation-needed-inside-nycs-wikipedia-community-drama
--Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)