Talk:Statue of Liberty

Two notes

If I recall correctly, there was an article about the absolutely awful state of the statue in the 1980's in the engineering journal Corrosion (I think that's the correct name, could have been Corrosion Science?). The restoration of the statue then wasn't a given, it was controversial. Lots of people believed it wasn't worth the $ to refurbish - hence the need for the charitable funding drive led by Iacocca. I was shocked at how bad the corrosion was (based on that article), and how bad the structure was damaged (under the copper curtain walls). I find both the poor maintenance and the public's wishy-washy attitude towards it notable and need further exposition here, imho. It might also be a good idea to explain what galvanic corrosion is in a bit more depth and that copper and iron (or steel) form a galvanic cell with a hefty potential (potential = voltage = chemical potential = energy sorta kinda). Also, it's mentioned that asbestos was a failed effort to protect from galvanic corrosion. The problem with this is that if the asbestos was applied in ~1886 and it was found "to be a failure" in 1986, then it's arguably a damn fine success. Expecting an insulating layer - of any type - to function for multiple decades is overly optimistic. (depending on layer thickness, of course - the Ozone Layer works well enough) The painting of the Golden Gate Bridge in California never ends. By the time they get to one end, it's time to start over at the other. Same with any large engineering structure - coatings have life times. (This is why waste dumps, after being capped (sealed) still require monitoring and why nuclear fuel waste is so problematic. Nothing lasts forever. (The Appalachians were once higher than the current Rocky Mtns...) (Too bad the managers at the Arecibo Telescope were oblivious to well-established corrosion science - you get what you pay for, and they weren't willing to pay for structural integrity.) but I digress98.22.50.44 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be a fair-size addition to this article, which is already approaching ten thousand words. It might be more useful to have a stand-alone article on the 80s renovation, including the technical, political and financial aspects. Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think some of this may already be at Conservation-restoration of the Statue of Liberty. - Station1 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and in fact that is our article about the 1980s renovation. The info can be added there, provided it meets the usual policies and guidelines such as our reliable sourcing guideline. Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2025

Gosensgo1992 (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

could someone please change "lighted" to "lit" when referring to the torch?

 Not done: Although less common than "lit", "lighted" is an acceptable form. Day Creature (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Though "lighted" is still accepted and gramatically correct, as above, I've changed this to make it more consistent with the rest of the article. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Date update

Could someone change the "139 years ago" to "140 years ago" in the dedicated space please, Thanks you. ~2026-54311-5 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Won't be 140 years until late October. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done As mentioned above, "139 years" is correct, as less than 140 years have elapsed since dedication. This is also updated automatically through {{Start date and age}}. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2026

You should make it immediately clear the year it was finished, 1886 ~2026-94604-3 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, "The statue was dedicated on October 28, 1886." is in the first paragraph. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Intro paragraph factually incorrect: It’s in NJ not NY

The opening paragraph is factually incorrect. It states that the statue is “ on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, within New York City.”

This is wrong: The statue is located wholly and exclusively in the State of New Jersey.

I’ll leave this to the editors of this project to correct. I’ve previously corrected this years ago, and apparently it was overwritten (in error).

this is a widely known fact & would be easy to cite on a simple Google search

thnx

Gobucks821 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the Island is in New York. See Liberty Island, specifically the section about the state dispute. It is a common misconception that it is part of New Jersey; that's why we don't cite Google results. It's a detached piece of New York, adjudicated through the Supreme Court. It's surrounded by New Jersey, along with the original portions of Ellis Island. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gobucks821, regarding The statue is located wholly and exclusively in the State of New Jersey.

As Acroterion says above, there is no correction needed here because both your original edit and the claim above are incorrect. You say the edit was "overwritten (in error)", but it is your edit that was in error. If you do a Google search, one of the top results that should come up is our article on New Jersey v. New York, which cites the actual ruling. Page 773 of the ruling states that per the Act of June 28, 1834, ch. 126, 4 Stat. 708, Article First sets the relevant stretch of the "boundary line" between New York and New Jersey as the middle of the Hudson River "except as hereinafter otherwise particularly mentioned." Article Second provides that "New York shall retain its present jurisdiction of and over Bedlow's [Liberty] and Ellis's islands; and shall also retain exclusive jurisdiction of and over the other islands lying in the waters above mentioned and now under the jurisdiction of that state." That 1998 ruling affirmed this, while ruling which parts of Ellis Island were in NY and which parts were in NJ. So, essentially, Liberty Island is an enclave of New York located in New Jersey. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That's all correct, of course, but the sentence is somewhat awkwardly written. It could be read as saying Liberty Island, or worse, all of New York Harbor, is within, ie., encompassed by or surrounded by, New York City, when it means to say the island is part of NYC. I suggest we drop the whole "within New York City" from the end of that sentence as a relatively unimportant fact that is not fundamental to the topic of the statue and so doesn't need to be in the lead. The important basic information is that it's on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. At the least, we should change the word "within" to "part of". Station1 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I see your point. I don't think we should remove NYC from the lead entirely, though. After all, the statue is a major symbol of both NYC and NY state as a whole, and the fact that it's in NYC is pertinent, especially when it's surrounded by NJ territorial waters. Not mentioning it in the lead would result in basically the inverse of the original comment, i.e. people complaining that the article doesn't say that the statue is located in NY. How about something like this:

• The Statue of Liberty (...) is a colossal neoclassical sculpture of a robed and crowned woman on Liberty Island, part of New York City, in New York Harbor.

(Or barring that, we can move the mention of NYC to a later sentence). – Epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That sentence would be a definite improvement. I still think "New York Harbor" is enough for a NY city/state association in the lead, though. Station1 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that’s a major point of my comment that I could’ve better clarified. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, it is accurate to state that the island is in the territorial *waters* of NJ (with governmental jurisdiction given to NY State)—which I hadn’t clarified. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Since that actually is accurate, yes, we can say the island is an enclave of NY surrounded by NJ territorial waters. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we have to make clear that the statue is in New York State, by referring to either it or New York City, in the opening paragraph. The statue is not and never was in New Jersey and there is no need for ambiguity so we are not POV between two options. Fort Wood was in New York well before the statue and the statue is in Fort Wood. Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)