Talk:Statue of Freedom

message: Seems to me that a huge bronze statue is already impervious to lightning damage because of its copper and huge mass and it is already spikey enough already to attract lightning to protect the roof of the capitol.  Statue doesn't never did need lightning spikes. Bronze statue will easily survive and properly direct lightning to ground as long as the statue is cable grounded to earth there is no need for platinum tipped spikes/ Are they really platinum tipped? I think the spikes are only to deter roosting bird poopers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmic (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: this remark that concludes the article is clearly out of date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.86.156 (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "which was due to be re-released in 2006"

message: Okay, I added an image. It is one I took of Armed Freedom in 1993 with a pretty crappy camera (there were no digital ones back then! gasp!) that I owned when I was, let's see, in junior high school. But its a pretty rare image I would guess, at least with the free license. If someone can find a better govt one please add it. I also have a pic of the dome without Freedom on it if that would be of use. IvoShandor 07:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: I removed this paragraphI'm hesitant to add anything else because it would be mere speculation.  —D. Monack talk 06:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is much lore surronding the reasoning behind the statue facing east. Some say that Freedom is said to face the East so "The Sun never sets on the face of Freedom." Others say that in facing East, it faces Great Britain, and is thus a post-Revolutionary War mockery of the British. Finally, some say that the statue of Freedom faces east so that it faces "Justice", the statue on the Supreme Court building so that "Freedom" and "Justice" always see eye to eye.
First, the Supreme Court explanation cannot be true because the Supreme Court building wasn't built until 1935. The other explanations are also unlikely. The simplest explanation is that the east side of the capitol was designed as the front because it was expected that most people in Washington would settle on the east side of the city since that is where the Anacostia was and the west was the swampy part. --D. Monack | talk 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I wondered about that as soon as I saw it but didn't know enough about the topic to really know. IvoShandor 06:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above, but I just loaded the article specifically wondering in which direction the statue faces, and why.  I was very disappointed not to find the answer, and then relieved to find it here.  Can we simply incorporate the above into the article? 24.34.62.46 (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a mention that the statue faces east. Anything more than that is mere speculation. —D. Monack talk 06:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: facing east

message: that this paragraph (which I added):
:The story that Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War from March 7, 1853 to March 4, 1857, and later to be President of the Confederate States of America, insisted that Crawford remove a Phrygian cap (which was the cap given to freed Roman slaves) from the statue is not accurate.  While it is a matter of record  Gale, Robert L. Thomas Crawford: American Sculptor, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh,  1964, p. 124  that Davis, through Montgomery Meigs, did insist on the removal of such a cap from a Crawford statue in the Capitol building, the statue involved was a figure of History to be placed about the bronze doors to the Senate Wing of the building and not the figure of Freedom atop the dome.  (N.B.: The Architect of the Capitol website contradicts this assertion.)
needs to be thought (at least by me) re-written and returned. Here is a page from Gale's book on Crawford discussing the Davis/phrygian cap issue two years (1854) prior to the Freedom commission.  Surely (opinion) Crawford would not have needed to go through the whole thing again.  Still the Office of the Capitol building should probably get the right-of-way over my opinion, so I will email the office and see what I can squeeze out of them.  I have another unrelated question for them in any case. Though, having thought about it, probably one question at a time is more likely to draw a response. Stay tuned. Carptrash 14:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It seems to me

message: Compilation of Works of Art and Other Objects in the United States Capitol,  Prepared by the Architect of the Capitol under the Joint Committee on the Library, United States Government Printing House, Washington,  1965
If the Architect of the Capitol calls it the "Statue of Freedom" and the official name is "Statue of Freedom" and the original title is "Freedom Triumphant in War and Peace," then where does "Armed Freedom" come from and why should that be the name of the article?  --D. Monack | talk 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very much suppoert changing the name to Statue of Freedom.  Crawford, in one letter to Meigs does refer to it as "Armed Freedom", but mostly it is just called Statue of Freedom.  Gerds (see you mail) though, calls it "Armed Freedom".  I think I'll post a page from the official Us Govt book on the subject. Carptrash 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. I went to elementary school with a picture of "Armed Freedom" (so called) on the classroom wall. I took it to be the most common name. I notice that commercially available versions of the picture are still called "Armed Freedom". (See ). Valerius Tygart 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of references to the statue seem to call it "Statue of Freedom" including the Architect of the Capitol which designates it "official". I don't think a poster disqualifies this. I think I can be excused for assuming consensus since there were no objections to moving the page back for six days and I specifically asked for your comment. If you thought there was no consensus as you stated in your edit summary, why did you move the page before discussing it here?  --D. Monack | talk 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that one poster does not disqualify what seems to be the most common name for the statue. This page should be moved to either Statue of Freedom or Freedom (statue). IvoShandor 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your name change to the previous one because you had changed it before I had had a chance to weigh in. I only saw your question to me today. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. If you move it again, please leave "Armed Freedom" as an alternate name (...also called...). Valerius Tygart 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course. No hurt feelings here. Just trying to avoid a revert war. --D. Monack | talk 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait.   IvoShandor didn't really present any discussion as to why s/he reverted the name back to Armed Freedom.  It seems to me (opinion) that the offical name of the statue is Statue of Freedom (see page nearby) and that this should be the name of the article.  Including the Armed name as another possibility seems fine, but,  IvoShandor, what was your reason for reverting, other than you were not asked?  Carptrash 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the page history before you jump to conclusions. I didn't revert anything. What's your reason for saying that, other than not being asked? IvoShandor 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if I did, which I didn't, this is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't have to ask you anything. IvoShandor 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Relax big guy, take a few deep breaths and it will be okay.  I inadvertently copied you instead of Valerius Tygart.  But in any case I do completely agree that you do not need to ask me for anything.  17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless that was a pretty snarky comment, I am sure the other editor would respond similarly. IvoShandor 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, without a doubt- though speaking for others is a pretty marginal tactic.   Snarkiness, on the other hand, can't be left un-responded to.  Carptrash 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's title

message: ===Evidence===
Apparently, a large chunk of this WP article was lifted from another website: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/freedom.cfm
The parts include:
(from article subheading Design) 
A monumental statue for the top of the national Capitol appeared in Architect Thomas U. Walter's original drawing for the new cast-iron dome, which was authorized in 1855. Walter's drawing showed the outline of a statue representing Liberty; Crawford proposed an allegorical figure of "Freedom triumphant in War and Peace."
(from article subheading: Execution)
Beginning in 1860, the statue was cast in five main sections by Clark Mills, whose bronze foundry was located on the outskirts of Washington. Work was halted in 1861 because of the Civil War, but by the end of 1862 the statue was finished and temporarily displayed on the Capitol grounds. The cost of the statue, exclusive of installation, was $23,796.82. Late in 1863, construction of the dome was sufficiently advanced for the installation of the statue, which was hoisted in sections and assembled atop the cast-iron pedestal. The final section, the figure's head and shoulders, was raised on December 2, 1863, to a salute of 35 guns answered by the guns of the 12 forts around Washington.
(from subheading Restoration)
On May 9, 1993, after almost 130 years in place, the bronze statue was removed from its pedestal by helicopter for restoration. The work was needed because of extensive pitting and corrosion on the surface of the bronze and because of a crack and rusting on the cast-iron pedestal. The project was guided by the recommendations of a thorough conservation and engineering study conducted in 1991. The United States Capitol Preservation Commission provided $780,000 in privately raised funds, which covered all project costs.
and
The cast-iron pedestal was restored in place atop the dome. The metal was stripped of paint, and the wreaths and fasces were removed to ensure that they were thoroughly cleaned and coated. The crack was permanently repaired, and the entire pedestal was primed and painted with a color specially mixed to match the statue. Restoration of the statue and the pedestal was completed in approximately four months. The Statue of Freedom was returned to its pedestal by helicopter on October 23, 1993, amid the celebration of the bicentennial of the U.S. Capitol.
There is more... check the .gov website address and see what I mean.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused, there is no copyright violation, right? Don't you think that if we said the text is based on that article, it would be fine? 018 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually look at both the article and the text from the Capitol website and compare? What I deleted was copied literally, word for word. There is no justification or remedy for it. Plagiarism is inexcusable -- and this isn't the softer form, where a citation isn't given -- it was blatant, as in cut and paste. 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the point is that while what the person did was deplorable because they did not credit the source o the text, similar to starting the text form an off copyright Britanica article, using a government document to start a Wikipedia article is considered to be okay by the powers that be on this project. Again, the editor who made the copy and paste was out of line, and disrespectful to the editors at AOC, but there is now a reference that says the text is based on that text. 018 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Ryecatcher773, I appreciate your point of view, but this is Wikipedia where there are rules governing how the webpage is written. Please read WP:PLAG and base your arguments on Wikipedia policy. If you do not like the Wikipedia policy, I would advise you to try to amend it or find a project that is more to your liking. To me the article, as I last edited it, is no longer plagaristic according to the policy. Specificaly, the policy reads, "But the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim providing it meets the Wikipedia content policies." The basic gist is that if it was in quotes, then the text could not be edited, but after a copy and paste, we can improve it, add additional references, and make it current. The article now clearly states that the content is from the AOC website. In deed, the policy even gives an example of Planetary_nomenclature#References. If you think the attribution text is in appropriate, I would encourage you to update it, otherwise, please do not RV this again. 018 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a bit of followup, this discussion appears to have ended after Ryecatcher773 posted this page at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_September_12 where the complaint was resolved as not a copyright violation but no call was made on plagiarism. 018 (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagarism

message: Apparently, a large chunk of this WP article was lifted from another website: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/freedom.cfm
The parts include:
(from article subheading Design) 
A monumental statue for the top of the national Capitol appeared in Architect Thomas U. Walter's original drawing for the new cast-iron dome, which was authorized in 1855. Walter's drawing showed the outline of a statue representing Liberty; Crawford proposed an allegorical figure of "Freedom triumphant in War and Peace."
(from article subheading: Execution)
Beginning in 1860, the statue was cast in five main sections by Clark Mills, whose bronze foundry was located on the outskirts of Washington. Work was halted in 1861 because of the Civil War, but by the end of 1862 the statue was finished and temporarily displayed on the Capitol grounds. The cost of the statue, exclusive of installation, was $23,796.82. Late in 1863, construction of the dome was sufficiently advanced for the installation of the statue, which was hoisted in sections and assembled atop the cast-iron pedestal. The final section, the figure's head and shoulders, was raised on December 2, 1863, to a salute of 35 guns answered by the guns of the 12 forts around Washington.
(from subheading Restoration)
On May 9, 1993, after almost 130 years in place, the bronze statue was removed from its pedestal by helicopter for restoration. The work was needed because of extensive pitting and corrosion on the surface of the bronze and because of a crack and rusting on the cast-iron pedestal. The project was guided by the recommendations of a thorough conservation and engineering study conducted in 1991. The United States Capitol Preservation Commission provided $780,000 in privately raised funds, which covered all project costs.
and
The cast-iron pedestal was restored in place atop the dome. The metal was stripped of paint, and the wreaths and fasces were removed to ensure that they were thoroughly cleaned and coated. The crack was permanently repaired, and the entire pedestal was primed and painted with a color specially mixed to match the statue. Restoration of the statue and the pedestal was completed in approximately four months. The Statue of Freedom was returned to its pedestal by helicopter on October 23, 1993, amid the celebration of the bicentennial of the U.S. Capitol.
There is more... check the .gov website address and see what I mean.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: :I am confused, there is no copyright violation, right? Don't you think that if we said the text is based on that article, it would be fine? 018 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually look at both the article and the text from the Capitol website and compare? What I deleted was copied literally, word for word. There is no justification or remedy for it. Plagiarism is inexcusable -- and this isn't the softer form, where a citation isn't given -- it was blatant, as in cut and paste. 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the point is that while what the person did was deplorable because they did not credit the source o the text, similar to starting the text form an off copyright Britanica article, using a government document to start a Wikipedia article is considered to be okay by the powers that be on this project. Again, the editor who made the copy and paste was out of line, and disrespectful to the editors at AOC, but there is now a reference that says the text is based on that text. 018 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Ryecatcher773, I appreciate your point of view, but this is Wikipedia where there are rules governing how the webpage is written. Please read WP:PLAG and base your arguments on Wikipedia policy. If you do not like the Wikipedia policy, I would advise you to try to amend it or find a project that is more to your liking. To me the article, as I last edited it, is no longer plagaristic according to the policy. Specificaly, the policy reads, "But the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim providing it meets the Wikipedia content policies." The basic gist is that if it was in quotes, then the text could not be edited, but after a copy and paste, we can improve it, add additional references, and make it current. The article now clearly states that the content is from the AOC website. In deed, the policy even gives an example of Planetary_nomenclature#References. If you think the attribution text is in appropriate, I would encourage you to update it, otherwise, please do not RV this again. 018 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a bit of followup, this discussion appears to have ended after Ryecatcher773 posted this page at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_September_12 where the complaint was resolved as not a copyright violation but no call was made on plagiarism. 018 (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've listen thatin reality she's Persephone  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Identity

message: Lady Freedom is a name sometimes used for the Statue of Freedom on top of the Capitol Dome. Like the Statue of Liberty is known as Lady Liberty. 2601:580:8:A48B:5563:EF29:23BF:DEAF (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Freedom on top Capitol Dome  

message: This huge bronze statue is a terrific lightning rod already, no physics reason for platinum coated spikes. I think the statue is well grounded like a lightning rod but the spikes are only to deter roosting birds from pooping onto the statue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmic (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning points and platinum tips? 

message: Where exactly is the cable that supposedly protects against lightning damage, and is it visible in any photographs? 173.88.246.138 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the cable?

message: While 5.9 meters is certainly a respectable height it doesn't exactly seem colossal to me. 
On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_tallest_statues_in_the_United_States you can see that in the US alone there are 65 statues taller than the statue of freedom.
Would it not be better simply to leave out the qualifiers entirely and let people make up their own mind on the relative largeness of the statue? 85.80.228.88 (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The List of colossal sculptures in situ defines colossal as more than twice life-size (with a link to Collins online dictionary). This would not include the base of the statue, just the figure itself. Many of the statues which you point out include the base. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When can a statue be said to be colossal? 

message: The Statue of Freedom makes a prominent appearance in The Monument Mythos, an alternate-history pseudo-analog-horror Internet series. This is where I, and many others, found out about the statue. Can we add a Popular Culture section? Or at least mention The Monument Mythos in the article somewhere? NAF-Projects (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add a Popular Culture section