Talk:Washington Monument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of WikiProject Protected Areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected areas worldwide. It may include the protected area infobox.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
B	This article has been rated* as B-Class on the assessment scale.*

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

[edit] Memorial Stones

193 or 199? Were 6 already installed before the construction re-started? Or is this inconsistancy highlighting an error in one of the two counts? JohnRuskin 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Measurements?

Is there anyone out there that can refer me to a link or provide accurate info that includes exact measurements of the Washington Monument? For instance, I have the overall height, width of base, width of shaft at top, but I cannot locate the dimensions of the pyramid on top (measures of pyramidion and capstone). Thanks, jh.

[edit] Half-finished photo?

Request: A photograph or engraving of the Washington Monument as it stood half-finished for all those years. Tempshill 18:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This one [1] credits the Library of Congress.
This one [2] is more difficult to see but is hosted by the LoC.
The National Park Service has a neat picture of a design sketch with the colonnade by Robert Mills [3].

---65.79.159.6 21:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could write about the renovation of the Monument (in the '90's?), especially if they could find a picture of it with the scaffolding on it. Also something about the increased security as time's gone on... Postdlf 4:28, 11 Jan 2003 (EST) my son needs measurements for hise project i cant find them anywhere HELP!!!! it is 555ft tall 55ft base but i want to know the 'surface area' now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Monolithic

I'm just going to cut "monolithic" out of the description, since it's big but it's not mono-lithic, okay? Wetman 00:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is how www.m-w.com defines monolithic:

Main Entry: mono·lith·ic Pronunciation: "mä-n&l-'i-thik Function: adjective 1 a : of, relating to, or resembling a monolith : HUGE, MASSIVE b (1) : formed from a single crystal <a monolithic silicon chip> (2) : produced in or on a monolithic chip <a monolithic circuit> 2 a : cast as a single piece <a monolithic concrete wall> b : formed or composed of material without joints or seams <a monolithic floor covering> <a monolithic furnace lining> c : consisting of or constituting a single unit 3 a : constituting a massive undifferentiated and often rigid whole <a monolithic society> b : exhibiting or characterized by often rigidly fixed uniformity <monolithic party unity>

The monument fits very comfortably within that definition since it is both massive or huge and it resembles a monolith even though, as you point out, it is not actually composed of only one part but the mere appearence is good enough to warrent the word.

It looks like one stone only from a distance. -- Decumanus | Talk 01:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even when you are close enough to see the mortar, the building has a monolithic appearence in the way that word is commonly used. Notice that the first definition is the one that says of, relating to, or resembling a monolith : HUGE, MASSIVE meaning that it is used in that sense more often than any other --Qaz

Applying monolithic could easily mislead, and it's not necessary to be misleading. -- Nunh-huh 01:38, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article talks at length about the structure and composition of the monument so I do not agree that it is misleading. I said on your talk page though that I do not want to get into an edit war so I am not reinserting the term but I do think that the use of that word faithfully reproduces a persons experience of the edifice and leaving it out takes something from the explanation. --Qaz

[edit] Price of aluminum & zoning laws

I have several sources placing the price of both silver and aluminum at about $1 and ounce in 1884 and gold at around $20 an ounce. I've also looked up the actual zoning regs for DC, and they state that building heights are limited to no more and than 20 feet taller than the width of their street. There are also exceptions made for spires, towers, domes, minarets, pinnacles, etc. Both of these bad pieces of info were added by Jsonitsac. If anyone is really bored they might want to fact check his other article additions. --Pascal666 23:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the construction portion of the article the price of aluminum is said to be "At the time of the monument's construction, aluminum was more expensive than silver, gold, or platinum". Later in the construction details portion the price of aluminum is said to be valued about the same as silver. As Pascal666's research shows this is true but gold was 20 times more expensive. If someone could clarify this point in the article I feel it would be beneficial.

[edit] Largest Freestanding Stone Structure

Does it merit mention that the monument is the largest freestanding stone structure in the world? [can anyone doublecheck that?]

Depends upon your definition of largest. If you mean tallest, then yes, as can be seen at World's tallest structures. If you mean by volume, not even close. A number of pyramids have it beat. --Pascal666 01:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed the world's tallest free-standing stone structure. This from one of the monument's tour guides (I was there in August).--NPswimdude500 04:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of things to look into

I do recall reading that the aluminum tip of the Washington Monument was valuable enough that it was protected by armed guards on its way to being placed on the monument.

Another note: there is a discrepancy between the number of steps listed in the article and the number of steps listed in the statistics section (893 vs. 896).

[edit] Washington Monument Jokes

I was occused for joke vandalism on this article, I came up with plan B. I want a separate article made; this one shall be Washington Monument in pop culture. It is a fact that my contributions for this article from the past exist in real life.

Some people tell me that the Washington Monument looks likes a penis making it a phallic symbol. I was also occused for making a redirect for the misspelled word for it (falix symbol). Will somebody consider this request? --TheSamurai 22:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, I never called it "vandalism," I called it useless trivia, which it is. A more comprehensive article/section on the Washington Monument might be tolerable, but "The Washington monument looks like a penis" and a random factoid from a Beavis and Butt-head movie do not an article make. android↔talk 23:22, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

- God, B & B did not invent the Washington Monument as a phallic symbol any more than American Pie invented MILF. Mike Judge was not inventing parody so much as paying tribute to it. The reference in Beavis and Butthead Do America did not emerge from a vacuum, and if it had, it wouldn't have been funny. A quick google search reveals 27,999 MORE results than the movie. A tasteful note is in order.--Loodog (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Building Materials

The article states that it's made of marble, granite, and sandstone. Later, it says the exterior is marble and the interior is granite. Where did they use the sandstone? --JD492 01:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sandstone is from Virginia, just like the cap rock. There is an inscription on the Peaks of Otter that state this. The bottom and top of the monument are from Washington's own state, so this would make the sandstone the base. PETN 11:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The below extract paragraph from the article is in need of help. The stone is not "discolored" merely a different color. Likewise, more like one-quarter to one-third of the monument is one color, the remaining top part another. The color change is not due to the work stopage, it merely indicates where work had progressed to, when a new source of stone was used. Incidentally work had stopped. The monument could be the same color, stoppage or no, if the same quarry/stone source were used.

Quote as of August 14, 2006:

As one may see, there is a slight discoloration on the monument. The bottom half is a different color than the top half due to the stoppage of construction. When construction continued after the Civil War the builders were unable to find the same stone used earlier resulting in a slight discoloration of the monument.

--Yellowdesk 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blodgett

The article states "just as Blodgett suggested" but no explanation is given anywhere else of who Blodgett is. This section at least was probably copied from somewhere else.

[edit] Image:US Navy Washington Monument 030926-F-2828D-390.jpg

I removed the image US Navy Washington Monument 030926-F-2828D-390.jpg from the Design section of this article because I found an actual design sketch to replace it.

It would be nice to incorporate the image I removed back into the article, but I just couldn't find a place for it as there are so many images already in the article. I felt it was more important to give an actual design sketch by the architect in the article somewhere. If someone can find a place to stick it, please do so. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annapolis Washington Monument

Can anyone find information of the supposed Washington Monument that is in Annapolis, Maryland. I have spent considerable time in Annapolis and have never heard of any monument to Washington there. I can't really find anything online either. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and if I get a chance I will take a picture of it. I have not seen it but it is apparently a small monument. It is at the intersection of Routes 50 and 450. It documents the 3-mile-oak location where local Annapolitans road out to meet Washington as he road into town to resign his commission. --Noitall 06:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Picture

Is it just me, or was the top image that was here before better than this new one put in the article by Ruwan? It seems that in the other one you could see much more detail, and it wasnt as slanted looking. Any thoughts? --ScottyBoy900Q 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ruwan's image is gone anyway, due to lack of sources. I liked the colors in Ruwan's image and how it framed the flags, though I like how Raul's image is cropped so that more of the image shows in the thumb. I might stop by there tomorrow (supposed to be nice and sunny) or next week and get more photos to upload. --Aude 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I stopped by this afternoon and got some new photos. I put one of them in the article, but don't mind if it's replaced by a different one (even if it's not mine). More of my photos are on commons, (some cropped to differents sizes). I also recategorized other Washington Monument images into there. --Aude 00:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I just uploaded a number of photos from the 2006 Cherry Blossoms. Gallery -- These photos primarily include the Tidal Basin, Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, FDR Memorial, and National Mall. If you have any specific requests for images, just leave a message on my Talk page I should be able to get those by mid-June. Provide as much detail as you can for what you are looking for in the image. --Thisisbossi 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted picture

The monument undergoing renovation in 1999

FYI, The image to the right was deleted around April 12, 2006 without explanation. I have not invested enough time in this article to make a good judgement if it should be reinserted or not, but at least I thought it was noteworthy here. It was originally left justified, and sized at 225px. — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarita?

Who is this Sarita? Is "Sarita rules the world" a cultural reference, or just a strange case of vandalism (this is the only article which contains the phrase). Could anyone who knows about it do something about it (and preferably write an article about it if it is a cultural reference)? 85.164.16.200 00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake obelisk.

I think this needle is hollow on the inside, with hidden steel grid structure to provide the skeleton. Only the outside applique is stonic, just like in case of Miss Liberty. The ancient egyptian monoliths in turn are truly single-crystal pieces of granite. 195.70.48.242 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In hi-res photos you can see small windows (double holes) near the tip of the needle, which proves the monument is hollow on the inside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.48.242 (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

That's no discovery. The Washington Monument is holllow, because, as most Americans know, one can ascend to the top via either the staircase or the elevator inside the structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.219.3 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Pictures

Starting around about "Later History", there's a strip of pictures of the monument. Do we really need that many pictures? Unless maybe they add something to the article. But I don't see a point. --Cadby ^(talk) 19:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I took out a bunch, but we might need to consider adding a gallery to the article, because the fireworks picture is a stunning, patriotic photo, and I think it deserves someplace in the article. Flap Jackson 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Azazello's comment re: the curvature of the earth

Azazello, You suggested that it's not possible to see the curvature of the earth from 170 meters up. Rather than my camera had a crappy lens. Granted, I was not using the best camera at the time, but I would suggest you think again. Logic dictates that if you were standing on the top of the Washington Monument and had no obstructions on all sides, you would see the earth curve around you as you did a 360° turn. If you didn’t you would just see the horizon go off to the left an off to the right with no end in sight. But since that doesn’t happen, you are seeing a slight curvature as you look at a pie shaped view of the horizon from the top. --Mactographer 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Refer to:

Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon

[4]

and other results from the obvious sources. You cannot distinguish the true horizon from a straight line from any stationary object on Earth. Anything else is due to an optical illusion. In your case this is due to barrel distortion, a common artifact of zoom lenses. I will grant you that a very close visible horizon (as opposed to true horizon), obscured by atmospheric effects, can be visibly curved as you rise above it, but the horizon in your picture is not obscured.

Please revert your edit. --Azazello 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your sources are talking about the same thing you are, you are seeing SOMETHING curve on the horizon. Cuz if it didn't curve, you would see the horizon go off to infinity on your left and right. My camera might see barrel distortion, but I'm not seeing barrel distortion with my naked eye. Change it as you see fit. --Mactographer 10:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That "something" is not the curvature of the Earth. I'm not sure what you are seeing, but not only is the Earth's curvature invisible from this height, but the horizon divides your sphere of view almost exactly evenly, and therefore is straight. The horizon does go off into infinity on your left and right; it loops back on itself. --Azazello 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are experiencing the effects of parallax; not the Earth's curvature. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, gang, I have been chatting with my own science expert, (a personal friend with a couple of Ph.D.s), and he assures me that your math is correct. And since we artists (perhaps with the exception of Master Leonardo da Vinci) have no natural defenses against math, I will have to accept that I was seeing some form of optical illusion or lens distortion or both. It is interesting to muse that the curvature of the earth is, more or less, what’s keeping me from seeing the curvature of the earth -- since the horizon bends away from me as the earth curves off in the distance. Am I the only one to find it ironic that science -- or more exactly, its close cousin, math -- should prove that, upon closer inspection, the earth is flat? --Mactographer 06:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To some degree, the pro-curvature opinions are not completely incorrect: what is seen from the Washington Monument could be considered to be due to the Earth's curvature. However, this effect equally applies even if you are standing at-grade, or perhaps on a boat in a sea: the horizon (approx. 10 miles distant) is a direct result of the curvature of the Earth. By this definition, however, mentioning it within the Washington Monument article is no more notable than saying "if you can see the horizon anywhere, you are observing the curvature of the Earth" which could then be added to pretty much any article. As for the horizon wrapping around and connecting with itself, that is the parallax I previously referred to. I hope this clears up any confusion (or I equally hope it fosters more)! Sláinte! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inscriptions

According to the BBC there's an inscription on the steps of the Washington Monument reading "Fy iaith, fy ngwlad, fy nghenedl Cymru - Cymru am byth" (My language, my land, my nation of Wales - Wales for ever)[5] 82.5.219.55 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, it certainly does. Feel free to be bold and add it in! :) Any photos available may also be appreciated. Thanks! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding A Debate On Photos And The Future Of This Article

I think we need to discuss which photos we should keep, and which ones we should delete. Or should a gallery be made? Are all the current photos on the page valuable to the information about the Washington Monument? Flap Jackson 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recommend a gallery. I'd suggest making sure that all the public domain images are put onto Wikimedia Commons and let the link to that category suffice. It's already there and it seems to be fairly well-populated with images. --Midnightdreary 23:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I see nothing of the controversy of the washington monument. As we all know, the thing LOOKS like a phallic symbol. We all can see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.198.238 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that drug dealers hang out in that area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.170.47 (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes

I can find no mention in this article about the blinking red eyes at the top; please add an explanation and description (and picture) of these. ---- Golbez (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did not inherit world's tallest structure title from Cologne Cathedral

Cologne lost it to Ulm, which lost it to Philadelphia City Hall, and then the Washington Monument, and the Eiffel Tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.219.3 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IUCN status

The infobox claims that the IUCN recognizes the Washington Monument as a "Natural monument". Surely, this cannot be correct. 84.13.71.197 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a cultural feature, which per my understanding meets the criteria of a natural monument (such items can be artificial). This is the most applicable of the IUCN categories. However, a quick search for something to support that claim came up empty-handed: it might be handy if someone can prove that the Monument does indeed have an IUCN designation rather than the surrounding park (which is IUCN V). --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)