Talk:Washington Monument/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 38°53′22.08377″N 77°2′6.86378″W / 38.8894677139°N 77.0352399389°W / 38.8894677139; -77.0352399389[1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Early messages

The text for the origin of this article was culled from U.S. government websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaz (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 January 2003 (UTC)

Can someone please get that picture to appear with the article. I have not yet figured out how to do that. Thanks --Qaz

Done. I don't know if it is where you want it though. Sannse 13:31 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Moved it to where I thought it looked best. Thanks --Qaz

Fact Checking

The article claims "The monument is the world's tallest stone structure, and is the world's second tallest obelisk (behind San Jacinto Monument, in Texas), standing 169.294 meters (555 feet 5⅛ inches) in height[1] and made of marble, granite, and sandstone." However the article on the Juche Tower (560 feet, granite obelisk) seems to contradict this, perhaps someone could check? 41.247.182.51 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Worse still, the article contradicts itself. In the first paragraph, it is said to be the second-tallest stone structure in the world; later on, the article claims that it is the tallest (and it doesn't mention 'free-standing'). SeverityOne (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

---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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do you mean the aircraft warning lights that are on all tall structures?

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)

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)

San Jacinto not an obelisk

This article describes the Washington Monument as "the world's second tallest obelisk (behind San Jacinto Monument, in Texas)." The article for 'obelisk,' though, defines it as "four-sided, tapering monument which ends in a pyramidal top" -- the San Jacinto Monument is octagonal and has no pyramidal top, so calling it an "obelisk" is in conflict here. And actually, the article on the San Jacinto Monument itself does not refer to it as an "obelisk," but a "column." HeadVI (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I reviewed the sources in the San_Jacinto_Monument article, and they do not refer to it as an obelisk either. --Megaboz (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I recall that the Guiness Book cited the San Jacinto Monument as the world's tallest "monumental column," which would also include obelisks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sinking

Is the monument still sinking? I remember learning around 30 years ago that the monument was gradually sinking. A chart of "World's Tallest Structures" in the Guinness Book had a footnote to that effect, and I remember a CBS In the News segment about it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Renovation

I think we need a section on the 2000 renovation of the monument including more information on the new elevator and visitor information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared999 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.15.187 (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2003 (UTC)

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).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.213.243 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.31.4 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Motivation

I realize the desire to explain why Washington was so important to American history, but much of that belongs on George Washington and not here. Motivation is much too long and detailed. Please take a stab at summarizing it and removing the POV and hyperbole. For example, the monument was not created because Abigail Adams said he was "polite with dignity, affable without familiarity, distant without haughtiness, grave without austerity, modest, wise, and good." Kingturtle (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, much of it seems unnecessary. This should be rewritten, and I'm tagging it as such. The.ravenous.llama (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Motivation lacks objectivity. For example, one sentence states: " With this monument the citizens of the United States show their enduring gratitude and respect." This statement reflects simple hero worship and nothing more. Some people believe that George Washington led a rebellion that could have been avoided by patience and diplomacy with the democratic parliamentary government that ruled Great Britain at the time. After all, Canada, Australia and a number of other former British colonies achieved independence from Parliament and the Crown without experiencing the loss of lives and property that George Washington's rebellion caused. Some people also consider that the French Revolution and the ensuing Reign of Terror and Napoleonic Wars might not have occurred if Washington's rebellion had not attracted imitators. It is clear that statements such as the one in the quoted sentence are pure propaganda. They are unworthy of Wikipedia. Motivation needs to be completely rewritten.Corker1 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand NEVER obtained independence from the crown, and obtained partial independence MUCH later than the Americans. --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Anaconda Smoke Stack in Montana

Sorry, DCRA and everyone else who never bothered to research further, but it seems like this 585 foot tall long-overlooked National Historic Place is The Tallest Masonry Structure in the World.

And it's not concrete. (http://www.stateparks.com/anaconda_smelter_stack.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.188.117 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

The whole article feels a little biased but I don't think it needs a larger clean-up. It feels a little story-like and encyclopaedic. For example, is it relevant to talk about the architect's personal feelings on the appearance of specific columns in the monument? This needs to be cleaned up. The.ravenous.llama (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I think is biased is "Washington remained ever mindful of the ramifications of his decisions and actions. With this monument the citizens of the United States show their enduring gratitude and respect." -timothymh, 6 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.135.218 (talk)

Welsh on the Monument

Be pleased to receive people's opinion on why there is Welsh on the monument. In my opinion I would suggest that since there were so many Presidents, congressmen, senators, signatories to the declaration of independence, etc who were either Welsh or of Welsh decent around up to the time of building of the Monument that it was a salute to those Welshmen who had been such a great influence in the forming of the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this posted as the story behind it.

"In 1834 a dinner was held by the Welsh residents of New York, presided over by E. W. Davis, and aided by T. Ingram Tones and the late Daniel L. Jones. The success of the dinner suggested the idea of organizing a Welsh national society, and a draft of the constitution and by-laws for such a society was made. Out of this initiative grew the present St. David Society, which has helped hundreds of distressed Welshmen who have stranded on their arrival In the United States. Daniel L. Jones was president in 1863. Among its presidents have been Gen. Thomas L. James. Hon. Noah Davis, Ellis H. Roberts, the present United States Treasurer, and a score of other prominent Americans. It was through Mr. Jones that the government permitted a stone to be placed in the Washington monument to represent the little principality. This stone was imported from a quarry near Swansea. It bears the following inscription: Fy iaith. Fy Ngwlad, Fy Nghenedl. Cymru. Cymru am Byth! Mr. Daniel L. Jones was a faithful, consistent and patriotic Welshman."

The Cambrian, a monthly magazine, Vol. XVIII, 1898. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.6.28 (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Marble

Maryland and Mass are not only states supplying marble to its construction. According to an 1858 government geology survey by Henry Darwin Rogers, white marble for the Washington Monument was also provided from Marble Hall, a quarry just outside Philadelphia. page 215 Marble Hall closed in 1870 now exist in the middle of Green Valley Country Club, Lafayette Hills, PA.

http://www.phillyh2o.org/backpages/PGS1858/PGS1858_Hydrology_Quarries.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.199.143 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a environmental protected area, and infobox replacement needed

The Washington Monument is an obelisk, not a wildlife preserve, so it is not an environmental protected area. I am removing it from WikiProject Protected areas and the Protected areas infobox should be replaced. Is there a substitute infobox available? I'd rather not just delete it with its useful factual information like the coordinates. doncram (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas, man-made structures as well as "wildlife preserves" can be protected areas because it explicitly includes the List of areas in the United States National Park System which includes the Statue of Liberty, Lincoln Memorial and Jefferson Memorial as well as the Washington Monument. Thus I am readding the WikiProject. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Washington Monument
LocationWashington, D.C., United States
Coordinates38°53′22.08377″N 77°2′6.86378″W / 38.8894677139°N 77.0352399389°W / 38.8894677139; -77.0352399389[1]
Area106.01 acres (0.4290 km2)
EstablishedJanuary 31, 1848
Visitors467,550 (in 2005)
Governing bodyNational Park Service
Hmm, no, the WikiProject Protected Areas, of which i have been a member for 1.5 years, is about natural/environmental areas. There have been some errors in what has been included in the WikiProject, such as you mention. I am cleaning those up, will get to the others you mention (although it is okay for wp:PAREAS project box to be on the Talk page of List of areas in the United States National Park System as many/most of the parks, etc. are protected areas. But not the memorial ones you point out.) If you are really interested, see current discussions at wt:PAREAS.
I removed the infobox (copied here, leaving pic behind) which included ridiculous assertion that the obelisk is a Natural Monument. Perhaps other info could be restored somehow to a different infobox.
doncram (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cross-references

I was looking for the Washington Monument, but searched for "Washington Memorial," and I was surprised to find this building. Obviously, I typed in the wrong thing, but I think it might help people if there were a cross-reference to either the Washington Monument or "Other buildings in honor of George Washington" at the top. I would add it myself, but I'm new to editing, and am neither sure of the process nor how to code it. Thank you all for your time. Jjgorndt (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This comment was intended for George Washington Masonic National Memorial which is where Washington Memorial used to redirect. The Wikipedia term for "cross-references at the top" is hatnote, but it frowns on adding a general hatnote to a more specific article, even though that is allowed for redirects (WP:NAMB). Judging your experience to be typical given the nearby memorials, Lincoln Memorial and Jefferson Memorial, I'm redirecting Washington Memorial to this article, which already has a suitable hatnote. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bible verses

It's rather shocking to see no mention of the bible verses inscribed in several tribute blocks that line the staircase such as: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for such is the Kingdom of God (Luke 18:16). Not to mention the article makes no reference to the fact that a Bible was placed in its cornerstone when it was built.Thismightbezach (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It should not be too difficult to find a good source and then add these to the article. If it turns out that there are ten thousand tribute blocks then it might not be a good idea to start quoting them all, but if not, have at it. Carptrash (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This website [6] seems to give pretty good covreage of the 193 (roughly) tribute blocks and also lists the many, many, many items (including a Bible) that were sealed in the cornerstone. I am curious to learn out how you integrate these facts with the "shock" you mention above. Carptrash (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't the " many items (including a Bible)that were sealed in the cornerstone" mentioned in the Wikipedia article? Are there good reasons for not including this national history? – Brother OfficerTalk 21:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck in "Popular Culture"

I've added a brief paragraph under about Glenn Beck getting some facts about the monument wrong at his "Restoring Honor" rally. --Naysayer35 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Climbing stairs

I am removing any claim that the stairs of the Washington Monument were climbed in a specified time because it is not verifiable. The original claim was added to the article on 30 April 2007 by Canzijr who claimed that he personally climbed the stairs in 10.0 minutes in 1957. This was soon changed on 18 July 2007 by Tman322 to 6.7 minutes in 2005, which remained in the article until 26 October 2010, when 66.114.22.122 vandalised it. However, according to an article by Scott Messmore, the stairs were closed to climbing in 1971, thus the 1957 claim is reasonable, but the 2005 claim is not. Unfortunately, even the reasonable 1957 claim cannot be verified. However, further research may recover news reports of stair climbing contests before 1971. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Achmed the dead terrorist

In this sketch, Achmed says the Washington Monument "Looks nothing like the guy. It looks more like a tribute to Bill Clinton". Add that under "Popular culture"? --Mithcoriel (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cornerstone

I noticed that previously someone asked whomever about including a listing of the items that were put in the cornerstone of the foundation. Besides the holy bible there is a good sized list which was published in a 1925 encyclopedic Q&A book that I have in hand. I would like to write out this listing and submit it as an addition to the "Dedication" section or add it as a seperate sub heading between "Capstone" and "Foundation" under the main "Construction Details" heading. I don't like it when the EDIT-bot erases my stuff automatically so this time I am seeking advice from the sage wikipedians in this forum. Is there a reason this list has been dis-incuded in the past? If I add this list will the editBOT just purge it like so much trash and vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBudinger (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You might post it here on the talk page and let other human editors have a look. Rivertorch (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Cornerstone

Within the cornerstone of the Washington Munument is a vault containing a time capsule in which many important items of the day were placed. It is unknown if this list is a complete description of the contents. List of items:

  1. A copy of the land grant for the land upon which the monument sits.
  2. A copy of the building and site plans for the Washington Monument.
  3. A copy of the Constitution of the Washington Monument Society.
  4. A portrait of George washington as originally painted by Stewart.
  5. A copy of the United States Constitution.
  6. A copy of The Declaration of Independence.
  7. Copies of presidents' messages up to that time.
  8. A silver medal depicting George Washington and the National Monument by Jacob Seegar.
  9. The Holy Bible
  10. A copy of the curent census statistics of the US.
  11. An American flag.
  12. A representation of the George Washington family coat-of-arms.
  13. Copies of newspapers containing accounts of George Washington's death and funeral

This list was originally published in: Questions to Answers by Fredric J.Haskin--Grosset&Dunlap publishers New York, NY. 1926 ChrisBudinger (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

An apparently complete list of 73 items is in Washington Monument religious references. However, this is too many to include in the article because Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes secondary sources. I recommend that only a few items be included within the article along with this reference for the complete list. I presume this list came from one of the references cited in the bibliography within Washington Monument: A history by the National Park Service. — Joe Kress (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The cited list by Snopes comes from Appendix C of the cited reference, actually entitled A history of the Washington Monument: 1844–1968 by George J. Olszewski (1971). Snopes' list excludes 71 newspapers included within that appendix, and many items it does list actually contain more than one item. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Louis Torres in ... Construction of the Washington Monument (1984) the original marble cornerstone was laid 4 July 1848 at the northeast corner of the lowest layer of the foundation which otherwise consisted of bluestone gneiss (pages 18–20). During the second phase of strenghthening the foundation, from September 1879 to May 1880, the periphery of the old foundation was removed and replaced with a concrete buttress (pages 67–71). In July 1880, the six feet of marble added by the Know Nothing Party to the obelisk during 1854–59 was removed to reach the 150-foot level (pages 74–76). Then, "The corner stone was laid on Saturday, August 7, amid fanfare that marked the resumption of work on the monument." Thus the cornerstone is now at the 150-foot level of the monument. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

This article has a section titled: "Why Washington" Presumably this is a rhetorical question needing a question mark, but it is a silly way to start a section in an encyclopedia - "Honoring Washington" would be better or just "Background." But really, why is this section needed at all? Look for example at the article on Nelson's Column in the UK honoring the incredibly obscure (by comparion) British naval officer - there's no page long description there of who this Nelson guy was. Just another example of Wiki's screwiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.144.220.2 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


I think it was fixed. Handsomeransom (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Tallest Obelisk? What about the San Jainto Monument, Houston TX, at 567.31 ft?

I do not understand why the obelisk at the San Jacinto battleground east of Houston TX is not considered a taller obelisk than the Washington monument. Even Wikipedia verifies the height.

I understand that the Washington Monument is the worlds tallest stone structure, but it seems hat is it not the wolds tallest obelisk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveinhouston (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but the San Jacinto Monument doesn't appear to be an obelisk in the traditional sense. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if not an obelisk, it seems pretty indisputable that it's made of stone. 72.64.152.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

An obelisk by definition is four-sided with a pyramidal top; although someone has gone and altered the San Jacinto article so that it says the monument is an obelisk, it is not one (it is eight-sided with a domed top surmounted by a five-pointed star). It's also not made of stone. It's constructed of reinforced concrete with a limestone facade. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Both the San Jacinto Monument and the Juche Tower in North Korea are taller than the Washington Monument as mentioned in this article at Washington Monument#Notes. But as already mentioned above, the San Jacinto Monument is made of reinforced concrete with only a facade of limestone and is not four-sided. No source mentions how thick its facade is. The Juche Tower is slightly taller than the Washington monument and is four-sided and constructed of granite blocks, but only up to its 490-foot level. Above that is a 66-foot metal torch, not a stone pyramidion.
The entire Washington Monument is made of stone except for its 9-inch aluminum apex and its internal metal stairs and elevator, which do not support the weight of any stone. Furthermore it has the proportions of a standard Egyptian obelisk, including a four-sided tapered shaft surmounted by a pyramidion. The main difference is tnat all Egyptian obelisks are made of a single block of stone, whereas the Washington Monument has tens of thousands of blocks. All exterior blocks are marble, which are weight-bearing, so they are thick at the bottom and thin just below the marble capstone. Below the 150-foot level completed by 1854, the marble is backed by bluestone gneiss blocks and rubble. From the 150-foot level up to the 450-foot level constructed after 1878, the marble is backed by granite blocks. Above the 450-foot level, the marble slabs are only backed by twelve thin buttresses made of marble blocks. The construction of the Washington Monument is described in [7] and the drawings at [8]. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fox News report on rumor of tilting

They were not the only ones reporting the unsubstantiated rumor. I hardly see a reason to single them out. Seems like a sneaky backhand against them. 67.233.238.244 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

unattributed text

Several paragraphs, especially in the "design" and "construction" sections, are lifted directly from [9] and [10]. These sources are probably public domain, but I'm not sure. Could someone familiar with the situation confirm PD and add the appropriate attributions? --Allen (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

National Park Service publications are US government publications and are therefore all in the public domain. They are not copyright. They can be copied all we want. However, Wikipedia's rules require that they be properly cited. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Any earthquake damage left?

The article mentions some of the damage and the repair work, but it doesn't seems to say whether the repair work has been completed or if there is anything broken left. I came to this article precisely to see how far along the repairs are. Please add that information if you got it from a notable/reliable source. --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See Post-Earthquake Assessment for a complete description of all damage to the monument, whether caused by the earthquake or weathering. The repairs began in late October 2012 and are expected to be completed in 2014, see [11] and [12]. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Washington Monument EarthCam shows the current status of the scaffolding required for repairing the damage as well as a few archival images of the scaffolding from EarthCam. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman inscription

It would be really nice to get a reference for this chunk of the "Interior inscriptions" section.

"Another inscription, this one sent by the Ottoman government, combines the works of two eminent calligraphers: an imperial tughra by Mustafa Rakım's student Haşim Efendi, and an inscription in jalī ta'līq script by Kadıasker Mustafa İzzet Efendi, the calligrapher who wrote the giant medallions at Hagia Sophia in Istanbul."

Carptrash (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The entry is already adequately referenced via refs 68 and 70, albeit with an incorrect page number and without titles (now corrected). See page 128 of The Washington Monument: A Technical History and Catalog of the Commemorative Stones and Sister monuments: Hagia Sophia and Washington Monument. I'm not sure if the "Ottoman government" is proper because the Stones citation states that it was provided by the Sultam of Turkey. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I see from this article's history that Carptrash added the references to the uncited entry on 16 March 2013. I should have checked the history before commenting. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Current new News

Headline-1: Washington Monument to reopen for tours after nearly 3 years of repairs since earthquake

QUOTE: "WASHINGTON – With more than 150 cracks patched and repaired in its white marble, the Washington Monument is set to reopen for the first time since a 2011 earthquake caused widespread damage. The 130-year-old memorial honoring George Washington will reopen for public tours Monday. It's been closed for about 33 months for engineers to conduct an extensive restoration of the 555-foot stone obelisk. Now new exhibits have been installed at the top, and visitors can once again ride an elevator to look out from the highest point in the nation's capital. During the restoration, The Associated Press had a look at some of the worst damage from the 500-foot level. Stones were chipped and cracked all the way through in some places. Others had hairline cracks that had to be sealed." -- [I hear on the radio that half of the %15million in earthquake retrofit was paid by a philanthropist.] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Aircraft warning lights

why is there no info on the addition of aircraft warning lights to the monument? 208.102.226.145 (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Has there been a recent addition? Do you have a source? Rivertorch (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Originally, aircraft warning lights were installed in 1931 on one of the two windows on each of the four sides of the pyramidion according to Louis Torres on page 102 of "To the immortal name and memory of George Washington": The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Construction of the Washington Monument. The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) of the Washington Monument (number DC-248) states on page 6 that the current aircraft warning lights (two on each side) were installed in holes above the pyramidion windows in 1958. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Quarry source

These two statements left me confused after I read this article:

One difficulty that is visible to this day is that the builders were unable to find the same quarry stone used in the initial construction, and as a result, the bottom third of the monument is a slightly lighter shade than the rest of the construction.

Phase One (1848 to 1858): To the 152-foot (46 m) level, under the direction of Superintendent William Daugherty. Exterior: White marble from Texas, Maryland (adjacent to and east of north I-83 near the Warren Road exit in Cockeysville).

How is it that the source could be completely lost in 1878 but here in 2013 we have no problem locating the quarry, apparently to within a few feet?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentseven (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2013

The article's statement is wrong. The actual reason for the discoloration is that different quarries were used. I'm modifying the article accordingly. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tallest Obelisk in the World

Under Wikipedia's definition of Obelisk - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk - San Jancinto Monument is a taller one maybe the tallest in the world

An Obelisk doesn't have to be stone. Just square and a pyramid on top. So the Washington Monument isn't the tallest.

Gworley (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC) George Worley

The San Jacinto Monument is an octagonal column with a star on top, so it's not an obelisk by any definition. Acroterion (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Monument/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kai Tak (talk · contribs) 16:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Some minor issues with grammar are spotted. I have fixed them myself.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research. Reliable sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Perfect.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images are appropriate with suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. The minor grammatical issues have been fixed. Other than that, there are no problems. Pass.

Night image

Here is a photograph of the Washington Monument at night in 2012. Maybe you can use it in the article. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Color choice

Color coding is used in the section "Aluminum apex" to distinguish different parts of inscriptions over time, which I think is an appropriate use of color. I'm not an expert on color selection, but I think the current choices are not very good in terms of accessibility for vision-impaired readers. There are some guidelines on color choice in WP:COLOR. Could somebody with color experience pick better colors that are more accessible? Reify-tech (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The previous colors were those used by the NGS source. Because I had already specified which lines were added in 1934, using distinct colors for legible 1884 vs legible 1934 was unnecessary, so I made them one color. I decided to describe legible vs illegible lines in the text, making colors redundant. Nevertheless, I colored them in the table for emphasis. I chose blue for legible text instead of green or magenta to account for the dominant red-green color blindness. Checking Colour Contrast Check I found that fully saturated blue (#0000FF) was WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. But I found that I had to reduce the saturation for red from #FF0000 down to #B60000 to make it WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. Both were relative to a white background which happens to have all three base colors, red, green and blue, at maximum saturation (#FFFFFF). — Joe Kress (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for making the effort to improve accessibility for blind as well as vision-impaired readers. I hope they find this an improvement. Reify-tech (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lat-lon precision

The source of the comment I added to the infobox, "precision according to National Geodetic Survey for 1 mm dimple atop aluminum apex", is "2013–2014 Survey of the Washington Monument" already cited in the article for the monument's height in Note 1. The ref previously mentioned in the infobox (as an HTML comment) was the NGS data sheet HV4442 which succinctly gave the latitude and longitude arcseconds to five fractional decimal digits and mentioned a "small dimple in the center of the peak which was used as the actual survey mark". Because the NGS survey gives more details, I'm making it the infobox reference via coord_ref so that it is displayed. It gives the same latitude and longitude precision (N 38° 53′ 22.08257″, W 77° 02′ 06.86428″) plus their standard deviations (±2.0 mm and ±1.0 mm respectively (pp 6, 31, 52)). Furthermore, it defines its survey mark as "WASHINGTON MONUMENT (HV4442) is a ~1-mm diameter dimple in the top center of an aluminum pyramidal cap affixed to the top of the Washington Monument. Weathering has reduced the height of the cap from its original designed height. See Appendix F for more information." (p 82) with a close-up view of the rounded peak and its centered dimple (p 86). Differential GPS was attempted at the peak, relative to six nearby GPS CORS (continuously operating reference stations). The resulting lat-lon coordinates were much worse (30 mm and 90 mm respectively, p 75) than the terrestrial survey because the peak was enclosed by metal scaffolding causing severe multipath and signal blocking problems, so GPS was not used to determine the cited coordinates (picture of GPS antenna p 71). Instead, the monument's coordinates were solely derived from the optical terrestrial trigonometric survey using two tacheometers (lasers) and corner reflectors (±0.5”, ±1 mm, pp 39, 42) to measure horizontal and vertical angles and distances to six nearby survey marks in the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) (pp 41, 46–49). — Joe Kress (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The coordinates have been changed from NAD83(2011) to WGS84, which is required for Wikipedia coordinates: N 38° 53′ 22.11276″, W 77° 02′ 6.88128″. — Joe Kress (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I converted the NAD(2011) coordinates given by the source to WGS84(G1674 or 2008) coordinates required by Wikipedia via NGS Horizontal Time-Dependent Positioning epoch 2010.0 used by the source with ellipsoidal height given by the source (149.172 m). Although the shift between the two ellipsoids is about one meter at Washington, DC, both are accurate to 1 mm when referred to their own ellipsoid. The resulting WGS84(G1674) coordinates are 38° 53′ 22.08920″ N, 77° 02′ 6.92910″ W (150.788 m). — Joe Kress (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Washington Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Washington Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing

The phrasing in the intro few paragraphs isn't great, and is unintelligible in the following excerpt.

"Although the stone structure was completed in 1884, internal ironwork, the knoll, and other finishing touches were not completed until 1888. A difference in shading of the marble, visible approximately 150 feet (46 m) or 27% up, shows where construction was halted. Its original design was by Robert Mills, an architect of the 1840s, but he suspended his colonnade, proceeding only with his obelisk, whose flat top was altered to a pointed pyramidion in 1879."

The Robert Mills article shows similar poor grammar, so it's assumed they've been written by the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.189.121 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the objectionable wording in the Robert Mills article was copied from an early version of this article by an anonymous editor on 23 Feb 2013. I have rewritten the wording in that article slightly. I have also broken up one of the compound sentences in this article into separate sentences. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Altitude hazard lighting system

The Washington Monument has a pair of red altitude hazard warning lights on each face of the cap. There is no information in this article regarding when or how these were installed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.177.31 (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

In 1931 four red aircraft warning lights were installed, one in one of the windows on each of the four sides of the monument. [ref 32: Torres, page 102] In 1958 the present eight lights were installed in their own 14-inch-diameter holes, one above each observation window. [ref 6: Historic Structure Report, pages 3-14 and 3-15] I am conflicted on how best to add this and other post-1888 information to the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Troy or avoirdupois?

It mentions a 100-ounce aluminum apex/lightning-rod. What ounce? Jimp 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism (07/26/2017)

At the end of the introduction some idiot added this last line: "The Washington Monument is expected to re-open to visitors in 2019.[22]In 2017, an explosion further damaged the elevator and nearly killed six high-school students and a teacher, only to be saved by Spider Man."

This is clearly vandalism, could someone please restore the last usable version of this article please? --177.230.93.9 (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 00:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Washington Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Vesica Piscis added to Washington Monument landscaping in 2004

I added... Vesica Piscis In the 2004 grounds renovation, two large circles were added to the landscaping with the obelisk in the intersection or vesica pisces. (The photo was already there.) 73.85.203.107 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Lightning rods and such timeline

I am confused. The picture of the apex taken in 1934 clearly shows the corrosion that was under the gold-plated copper band which held eight lightning rods. The article says the band was removed in 2013, and goes on to describe the corrosion as if it were discovered at that time. Was it also removed in 1934, and then reinstalled over the (already) illegible inscriptions? Gimelgort (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The band that originally held short lightning rods was replaced in 1934 by another band with holes for long lightning rods in a different pattern. The 1934 picture shows that the inscriptions were already damaged in 1934 and that three lines were added to the east face in 1934, but neither fact is mentioned in most sources. These facts are mentioned in the "2013–2014 Survey of the Washington Monument" already referenced in the article, which includes rather poor pictures of all four faces of the aluminum apex as they appeared in 2013–2014 in Appendix G on pages 90–95. I'll add this info to the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Aluminum: element 13

In a comment to this talk page deleted by its writer, Vesuvius Dogg, aluminum is called element 13, "And the capstone made of aluminum, element 13." Elements were not numbered that way until 1913 when Henry Moseley proposed that the elements in the Periodic table be numbered in the order of the positive charge of their nucleus. Previously, including the period when the Washington Monument was proposed or under construction, 1833–1888, elements were ordered via their atomic weight. In Dmitri Mendeleev's first draft of his periodic table in 1869, aluminum is "numbered" 27, its atomic weight. Its modern atomic weight is 26.98.

Furthermore, aluminum was not initially chosen by anyone associated with the Washington Monument. Colonel Thomas Lincoln Casey, its second phase architect, in his first letter to metallurgist William Frishmuth, suggested that the metal cap be made of "Copper, or Bronze or Brass" "plated with Platinum". Frishmuth suggested aluminum instead, but even he stated that if he was unsuccessful in casting it, he recommended gold plated aluminum bronze. See The Point of a Monument: A History of the Aluminum Cap of the Washington Monument — Joe Kress (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

ASAP CUAGAU!!
A comment of primal clarity,
Stacking copper on silver on gold;
A column that folds up the verity,
Periodically tolled, or untold.
Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC) 29-47-79
I might also add: the state of knowledge per the relationships and “periodicity” of the elements as of 1888, when the capatone was put in place, was considerably more advanced than in was in 1869, the date you stated for Mendeleev’s initial ordering. Considerable benefit might be gained by reading Mendeleev’s own notes on all this, in Russian... As for the freemasonry combinations raised (and discarded, in deleted Talk comments), they have something to do with a Tschudi ancestor of mine who brought Freemasonry to Russia, but whose (significant) biography is told in Freemason encyclopedias, not in this one... But he travelled to Russia in the mid-18th C, and was also in communication with George Washington, and... yea, there is some significance to that 555 number, but this is no placd for “original reseaech”, or G-d forbid, telling anyone something that would amaze the curious and open-minded... As I said, I deleted my comment[s], deleted [them] immediately, and you STILL sprang on it... Has Wikipedia become a place where one is not even permitted to make a Good Faith comment on a Talk page, and then delete it, without being called to account for it? Apparently so... I guess SOME ndividuals don’t deserve a right here even to second-guess THEMSELVES, or rather, certain individuals don’t deserve that, individuals like me, who are ultimately expendable, and... well, I’ll just leave all this to the over-curious and over-critical readers who seem to be proliferating among the Wikipedia élite these days, policing being their wont, and never taking a day off. A toast to you all. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues in "Excavation and initial construction"

There is ample evidence that there existed highly skilled slaves in nearly every form of labor in the pre Civil War US, including in construction and masonry. Slaves were involved with building many if not all of the monumental structures that exist to the present day from this period.

This section of the article builds a few points based off of a quote John Steel Gordon which implies that is not the case. I don't think his quote should really be included without more evidence to back it up, and instead the article could use textual and archeological evidence that exists of all the involvement of slaves in highly skilled work. It is irresponsible of him as a historian to perpetuate this idea with no evidence because it relies on unfounded tropes about slave populations, that they possessed no skills and could only be relied on for grunt work, while their masters domineered all the artistry and mastery of the trades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedhistorian11 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Texas Quarry

Texas Quarry appears to be under the control of Martin Marietta Materials (NYSE:MLM), who purchased Bluegrass Materials April 30, 2018.[13] Martin Marietta lists Texas Quarry in its facility locator,[14] selling aggregate but not building stone. However, LafargeHolcim still has a minor presence at the site, selling Ready Mix Concrete.[15] — Joe Kress (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right, they've changed hands, and the quarry now supplies aggregate, not building stone. The Beaver Dam building stone quarry is or was in the same place, but I beleve the Texas aggregate quarry has spread over it. Acroterion (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Beaver Dam quarry is separate from Texas Quarry, located about 2000 feet north of Warren Road. It is now flooded and called Beaverdam Pond at the corner of Beaver Dam Road and McCormick Road. Nevertheless, some replacement building stone was obtained from it for the 1998–2000 renovation of the monument. See Beaver Dam, Maryland, especially the ref "Taking the plunge". — Joe Kress (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Washington Monument HV4442 NGS Data Sheet".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Monument/Archive_1&oldid=1179417675"