h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Statue of Liberty - A1034209
Author: Bels - U188050

This is a proposed update to the excellent Edited Entry A985287 - the Statue of Liberty.

The text of this entry is a post I made to the original entry, but because it is quite long and detailed I thought it should be Peer Reviewed.

I would have made these comments in the Peer Review thread of the original Entry, but was unavoidably delayed in doing so. When I got to it, the entry had already been picked, edited and frontpaged.

I've never tried to update an entry like this before; and I am not now, nor have I ever been, a US citizen. But there does seem to be a considerable US readership on this site and, if for no other reason, I felt it would be good to have as full and complete an entry on this topic as possible. I also think a lot of people, even USians, misunderstand the Statue.

Your comments will be most welcome.

Bels
28.4.03

One thing I forgot to mention - there's a painting in the Louvre, Paris, by Eugene Delacroix, entitled 'Liberty leading the people'. It was done in 1830 and would have been well known to both Laboulaye and Bartholdi and must have influenced the design of the statue (the raised right arm, the flowing skirts). Worth a link to http:// history.hanover.edu/courses/art/delalib.html (The man in the top hat to the left of Liberty is Delacroix himself.)

Hello there Bels!

Just thought I'd let you know (if you don't already that is) that all updates are for the moment going through Update HQ (there's a link to it on the PeerReview page. It's *very* slow ('cos it's manned by one person!) but it does get done. It might be an idea to keep this in PR for six days, so you get the feedback you want, then submit it to Update HQ. It's a bit strange to want an entry updated that has only just gone into the EG though.

Also, there's a slightly smaller version of the statue in Paris near the River Seine in France. Now, not a lot of people know that

Oberon2001

Hello Oberon2001!

>It's a bit strange to want an entry updated that has only just gone into the EG though.

Do you think it ought to wait?

I thought I'd explained in Post 1 what happened and why I am proposing this update. The information I would like to add is historic, not time-sensitive, so if it is approved then the sooner it goes in the better, I would have thought, since it's not going to go out of date. As to when that might be, and how it might be done, that is out of my hands.

Bels

I thought that Update HQ had pretty much died the death (I seem to remember Jimi saying something along the lines that he doubted that he'd be able to update any more entries), and all updates were now going though PR.

My update of the Canada entry never went near Update HQ, as far as I know. I was told by the italics to just write the new entry and put it through Peer Review so that's what I did; then, away it went.

We're still reviewing the update process after Jimi reluctantly had to admit defeat due to the lack of people willing to help out.

I'm not really sure about this though. We've already said that we prefer people not to write about the same subjects and while this does offer new material it doesn't really invalidate the existing one, which would be what an update would presumably offer. Additionally, it does seem an indecent amount of time to update an entry that only went into the Guide comparatively recently.

Can't this just be posted underneath the existing entry? That is, after all, what the threads are there for.

Jims

It *is* posted under the entry, as I have already mentioned.

But see F47997?thread=261749, where Ashley (Post 2) suggested the possibility of changes being made at some stage.

Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with this.

See also F19585?thread=270267 (Post 3) where the author of the original entry says he would prefer to have my info included.

Update HQ is dead?
Shouldn't the link be taken off the Peer Review page then?
Whcih reminds me, I'm gonna re-submit my Star Wars entry into PR.
Oberon2001

...author of the original entry stepping in...

First things first: Oberon, I read the current star wars entry. Inadequate I think...

Anyway, I agree that these changes should be made. Bels linked to a post where I said it and I guess I'm just... confirming. I read his original post on my entry and it is very thorough.

Good luck

Hi Jodan, I've been lurking here wondering when you'd show up.

Does all this mean that someone is going to mention that the statue's head is off-centre? And the planning error that led to that off-centredness?

Jodan, you'll be pleased to hear my Star Wars entry is back in PR and I think you'll agree it's a lot more comprehensive (which is why I submitted to Update HQ in the first place!)
Share and Enjoy.
Oberon2001

I think it was the first thing I responed to when I came home.

I'm not going to pretend I've read this entry. I assume that it's like the note you left on my entry? If not, I'll read this one

Hi, Bels!

I see that this is intended as an update. In the other substantial updates I've seen which have gone through Peer Review, the author submitted the original+update together, so that, after checking by a sub-Ed, it could be copied straight on top of the existing entry. So I can see two useful possibilities for this entry:

First possibility: you can combine your amendments with the original entry, and replace your present entry with this. Peer Reviewers can then see the changes in context, and comment on whether the changes are worth making.

My own opinion: as it stands, I think that adding all your changes, while it may make the entry more accurate in places, would also unbalance it and make it less readable overall. On a simple replace-or-not question, I would say no. Since the editors sounded very lukewarm indeed about the possiblity of a substantial update so soon after the entry appeared on the Front Page, I think the scouts may not be very enthusiastic either. It certainly sets an awkward precedent.

The other possibility, which I favour, is to withdraw this from PR, dismember it and do two things with the bits:

Submit the shorter factual additions to Editorial Feedback as simple additions, with the approval of the author.

Put the rest of it into a new entry. The way I would arrange it would be
What does the Statue of Liberty Represent? (title)
The French Dream of Liberty (Header)
The stuff about the original inspiration, the Empire, Napoleon III etc.
Breaking the Bonds of Liberty (header or sub-header)
The para about the rather too discreet 'chains'
The Poet Emma Lazarus (header)
The biographical stuff
Lazarus' Poem about the statue (header)
Give the full text, and your commentary
New Symbols for Old (header)
How the 'give me your huddled masses' meme replace the 'liberty as the light of the world' meme.

I know you're not as fond of headers as I am, but I think that would produce a very readable entry which gets across your point about changing views.

If you leave things as they are, I've a sneaking feeling that this will just drift slowly down through PR. The lack of recent comment may mean that people are uneasy about the situation of amending such a recently edited entry.

I find the ideas about the symbolism really interesting - does they to some extent represent the difference between a French love of grandiose abstractions, and an American tendency to pragmatism? Writing the whole thing as a separate entry would highlight this, and avoid stepping on any toes.


Azara

I agree with Azara for the most part.

's toes hurt.

Well I'm really sorry if that's happening. The last thing I would want is to step on any toes. I only put this into Peer Review because I was encouraged by what Jodan has posted elsewhere and above, but I obviously didn't perceive the true situation.

So thanks a ton for letting me know. Of course I'm withdrawing this from Peer Review immediately, and can only ask anyone who's been at all upset to accept my humble apologies and accept that I never intended to upset anyone.

I'm taking the Ellis Island one out for now as well, to be on the safe side.

Oh dear, not doing too well, am I?


Bels

I was kidding ( for the (cruel) bad joke). That's why I had the smiley after ...Toe's hurt

There's no need to take it out

Please, Bels, put the main part back in again, just under a different title! Your ideas are very interesting and enlightening and would make a very worthwhile standalone entry.


Now you'll make me feel really guilty, and I've only just dipped my toes back into PR after months of inactivity...

Azara

>I've only just dipped my toes back into PR after months of inactivity...

Me too. I've been out of it for several months.

Sorry, but I'm not contributing anything further to this site as far as this topic is concerned.

Bels

I have to confess to not having read the original entry. I enjoyed reading this.

Better informed, etc.