Talk:The New Colossus

Draft

saving a draft here, cause I'm not so sure about it. de:The New Colossus

The New Colossus is an Emma Lazarus poem, written for and inscribed in the Statue of Liberty.

Not like the brazen giant of a Greek fame

The allusion here is to the Colossus of Rhodes

With conquering limbs astride from land to land

The Colossus of Rhodes at one time was imagined to stand atride the harbour of Rhodes, but this is now felt to have been incorrect

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates will stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

the twin cities that frame New York Harbor are New York and Elizabeth, New Jersey <-- this still needs to be checked, may be NY + Brooklyn?

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.

I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
(Unsigned)

Regarding the "twin cities" it most assuredly is a reference to NYC and Brooklyn, which were still seperate cities at the time the poem was written in 1883, but would have both been considered majo enough to warrant mention. Also, Jersey City, not Elizabeth, is the closest NJ city to Liberty Island. (Unsigned)

You are right about Brooklyn not being incorporated into NYC until 1894, but Liberty Island is clearly located between NYC and Jersey City, see here. On the other hand the same line mentions a "mysterious" "air bridge" ("The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame."), probably referring to Brooklyn Bridge which was opened in the same year the poem was written (4032). So it might be Manhattan and Brooklyn after all. Maikel (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Or Jersey City and Brooklyn. Maikel (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising Reference

I knew this from don't remember where, and found further substantiation at Talk:Emma_Lazarus
Will also edit German version
--BjKa 09:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure it should be mentioned on the page...

But I was looking at the Bedtime for Democracy cover [1], and the lower left says "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". A shame WP can't store the whole version, it could be when the time comes for copyright off on this, no originals will be left? {sjöar}

New Colossus

What Does the new Colussus mean?

The old colossus is the one of Rhodes. Maikel (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comma?

Two questions regarding the missing comma...

• Was it on purpose?
• Why didn't they fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.yarmis (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to ask that. My first act as president will be to add that comma. Surely our government can offord a comma!

Watch this: ,,,,,,,,,,,, Wikipedia is over a dozen times richer than the US government! 75.118.170.35 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a "classic essay." Is it even important?

Recently added:

James Fulford authored a classic essay discussing the origins of the statue and how it came to be identified more with immigration than with liberty. [2]

We have no article on James Fulford. No citation is presented indicating that a reliable source considers this essay to be a "classic," or even important. It's not clear to me who James Fulford is, other than a contributor to VDARE, which seems to be some sort of blog or web magazine devoted to opposing immigration and multiculturalism.

I don't think this belongs in the article. It smacks to me of promoting VDARE.

If there's some sort of current movement to reclaim the Statue of Liberty to its original purpose—described by Fulford as the celebration of "the participation of France in the American War of Independence, and the perpetual friendship of the two nations"—and sources can be cited to show this movement has some important, then it's worth noting, although I'd think that would belong better in the Statue of Liberty article than here. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just Wondering

I'm not quite sure if this was brought up... I'm pretty sure it has been brought up before, but was anyone other than me wondering why the article was titled "the New Colossus", but didn't have the sonnet? It has history, yes, but not the actual sonnet. Just wondering if this could be fixed maybe? Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the quote box at the top was only showing "—Emma Lazarus, 1883" and no text above, then I think I fixed that with this edit. Why an extra pipe character should cause this problem I cannot understand. 84user (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting error

I'm not sure why the layout is the way it is, but the wikisource box and the image at the top of the page appear inside the Quote box, not outside of it like they are in the page code. For some reason, this causes the image and the wikisource link to be un-clickable, at least on my machine. I'm not sure of the best way to fix it, but I think it needs to be fixed. The Editor1 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Another format issue is that the poem is a sonnet so 4:4:4:2 - so the formatting should reflect that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoswami (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Anthem?

Why is no mention made of the Irving Berlin setting of the last few lines? Dfrankchat (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the Irving Berlin treatment in his musical "Miss Liberty" is noteworthy, there have been so many treatments of this sonnet that I fear that a separate section describing this one it would turn this page into a feud regarding which are important. Today I see the Stewart brothers (or their promoters) have taken the time to create a whole section with their treatment, and the lyrics (largely identical to Lazarus' original) painstakingly typed out. These can be included in a "Cultural References" or "Influences and Legacy" section. Grunionspawn (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

'Other uses' section

The 'other uses' section is slowly turning into a 'references' section. I'm not sure if something like that would contribute to the article. This sonnet is pretty famous and we could get an endless list of music, movies and other media referencing to it. I suggest we either stick to references that are very important, actually list its other uses or remove the section altoghter. Any thoughts? ~ Zirguezi 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If no one has any objections I'm going to go ahead and remove some references in the other uses section. ~ Zirguezi 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

New Section

There should be a comment that since 9-11 it has been the fearful and stingy voices in the US who have stridently taken center stage, making this sonnet irrelevant and nonrepresentative of the post-Bin-Laden America. Or is it America, without her ideals? Did Bin Laden actually destroy America? This sonnet stands as testimony.AtomAnt (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Songs"

Removed this section because it was entirely WP:OR, needs reliable secondary sources making these claims. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not OR, and removal is an overreaction - removal reverted. One statement is wiki-linked, another web link is to the song lyrics in question. I added another wiki-link and a cite tag. WCCasey (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "wiki-linked", Wikipedia is not a source (also one article does not mention or cite this), and lyric pages are primary sources, insufficient for Wikipedia (see WP:PST). Without secondary sources its "Oh, I saw this, let me add that in"/WP:OR pure and simple. Since nothing was done here re:WP:BURDEN I will tag the "In popular culture/trivia" problem. Clock on it, if no one cares after a while I will remove this section again, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What's trivia and what's not is entirely subjective. In an article about a poem, I don't think references to adaptations of that poem are trivia. On the other hand, for example, I would agree with removal of this section from the Statue of Liberty article. The question of links and sources is relevant only if you first agree that the section is not trivia. A link to another WP article is the opposite of OR, and I don't understand why additional sources are needed to prove the lyrics of a song. A lyric page found online is not a primary source - it's a copy, and therefore secondary. Are you arguing that the actual lyrics are not what is reproduced online? WCCasey (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. "proof" that something exists is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Secondary sources are not "copies", a copy of a primary source is still a primary source. Song lyrics are primary sources (see WP:PST note #3). A secondary source is some authors thinking on a primary source. What's trivia and what's not is NOT entirely subjective, Wikipedia has guidelines WP:IPCEXAMPLES and WP:HTRIVIA that spell it out pretty well. Whats missing here (and whats needed to avoid deletion) is reference to "noted authors dissertation/article/book on usage of "The New Colossus" in popular culture and literature". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We have a number of disagreements here:

• The fact that we have trivia guidelines and not trivia rules shows that it's subjective. Guidelines are subject to interpretation by editors.
• The ultimate measure of notability for a poem is whether any of its words are remembered and repeated - it's hardly trivia.
• Quoting song lyrics is no more Original Research than quoting the poem which is the subject of the article.
• The fact that at least one other editor disagrees with your reasoning means you can't unilaterally delete text.
• Wikipedia operates on consensus, not individual editors' opinions.

Anyway, it doesn't appear we're going to agree on this, so I suggest submitting the matter for mediation. WCCasey (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:V and the sub WP:BURDEN are not consensus guidelines, they are policy, and article content has to meet that criteria first. Re:"you can't unilaterally delete text", please take some time to read WP:BURDEN. Claims (being made in this section) that a particular repletion of a poem in popular culture/literature has significance has to be cited to a secondary source, "ultimate measure of notability" in Wikipedia is reliable secondary sources. An editor saying "oh, I saw this repeated in a song, here is the link to the songs lyrics, this is significant" is WP:OR (and trivia for that matter), the editor citing their indiscriminate observation of the instance and putting it in Wikipedia, making their own claim of significance (instead of citing a secondary source that makes that claim).

I have gone ahead and re edited the section based on basic Wikipedia policy, policy is usually not a matter of debate. If it is unclear I would suggest a reading of those policies. The third paragraph (the rapper) removed because it seems to be WP:SPAM, it was put up by a one day SPA[3] spamming a weblink over several articles. Millennial Choirs and Orchestras paragraph removed because I can find no reliable secondary source mentioning it[4], feel free to put it back in if you can find one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole issue is now fairly well documented here on the Talk page, and nothing will be gained by further disagreements over WP editing policy. The discussion has also led to some good editing of the article's "Influence" section - better and more complete than before. I will continue to oppose low-effort, heavy-handed editing (deletion rather than improvement) but, in this case, I'm satisfied with the eventual outcome. WCCasey (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Influence section

Is the description of the Irving Berlin song as "overly sentimental" not a bit non-NPOV? I appreciate that the editing of this section has been somewhat controversial in the past, so rather than simply deleting "overly", I thought I would see if anyone had any thoughts. Harris (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Its sourced[5] and the source says "schmaltzy". It would be a matter of following through with multiple sources that have this view. Removing it for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Engraving or casting?

The article and the plaque itself describe it as being an engraving, which is, according to the Wikipedia article, "...the practice of incising a design onto a hard, usually flat surface by cutting grooves into it." It very much seems to be a casting however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It now occurs to me that the "purpose" in the box, "Sonnet was cast onto a bronze plaque and mounted inside the monument in 1903" is incorrect. Lazarus had no intention of that use of the poem, but rather wrote it for the purpose of fundraising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Small caps

What is the justification for rendering "Mother of Exiles" in small caps? Neither the plaque nor the manuscript seems to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

After seeing a current back-and-forth mini edit war, I come here to ask the same question. The change to small caps was done by User:Frellthat in this diff (pinging them for a possible explanation). I thought it might be an attempt to highlight the first occurrence of the synonym/redirect Mother of Exiles (normally done in bold, see MOS:BOLD, yet maybe they felt it looked awkward, which it would), but anyway, that lemma actually redirects to the article on the statue, not to this one on the sonnet). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally misread: there was no edit war. I only saw someone changing it back to normal sentence case. All is good now, and the question is moot (imo). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for including cultural references, adaptations, etc.

This question has come up periodically over the years on this page (see here, here, here), but not recently. What is the appropriate balance of including significant cultural references to this poem while not including every single time somebody out there adapts it, mentions it on a TV show, etc.? As other editors have noted above, there is a risk it would "turn this page into a feud regarding which are important" (User:Grunionspawn) or "an endless list of music, movies and other media" (User:Zirguezi).

These points were made years ago, but they are only more likely now, given the current political climate in the U.S. and several high-profile references to the poem by political figures for and against the current administration. There are of course Wikipedia policies and guidelines that inform this issue -- undue weight/balancing aspects; Wikipedia is not a newspaper; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and recency bias. But I'm not sure if there is complete consensus on whether these types of lists should exist and how they would be populated. Because this work is so well known and so influential right now, it seems to me it must be something more than "I have a secondary source (or a couple of them) that mentions the derivative work/reference"--that's trivial to do if it's a prominent artist/series/film in 2019. It has not gotten out of hand on this page yet, but I think there have been a decent number of recent edits going back and forth about adding stuff. For example, see this diff from this week. (pinging User:Smallbones and User:Andrew.weston for any thoughts)

This seems like it might be a good place to apply something like the 10 year test--will this reference be notable or have any significance ten years from now? This would, for example, seem to favor keeping the Irving Berlin adaptation, but cutting the reference to the short-lived Netflix show The OA. (In fact, that line is currently sourced only to a YouTube video, so I'm going to remove it now for that reason. But I'd argue for cutting it even if it had a good source.) I thought perhaps we could reach some semblance of a consensus guideline here before any kind of edit war gets started--and then, if editors (especially inexperienced ones) add things that don't belong, they can be pointed to this discussion to understand why they were reverted. Thoughts? --EightYearBreak (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm desperately trying to get out of town for a long weekend, but I'll just say that I deleted the other recent cultural reference as "trivial" because it seemed to just mention the title, not actually read the poem itself. I do support the ten-year rule here (and most places) and do think that most of the current political discussion will be very relevant in the long term. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a case for including political uses of the poem in a section other than the cultural section, similar to what was done with those insipid remarks by a Trump official where he changed the lines. Assuming the instance is noteworthy enough an evocation of the poem to be sourced.

As for cultural references, I think at minimum a ten-year test and requiring a secondary source is advisable. I recently had to delete a reference to a YouTuber's D&D game. Loquacious Folly (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli and The New Colossus

This section is biased towards falsified reporting (references 22 and 23) on his actual use of the poem in order to defame him. On the CNN interview, he did not say that the poem somehow signals that only the Europeans cannot be a public charge. Media outlets are not even stretching the interpretation of his comment. They are slapping the label on him and tracing back from there to say he's a racist. All in all, has absolutely nothing to do with this poem, and I am removing this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.215.140.108 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Falsified reporting" sounds like "Fake News!" in a dinner jacket. Perhaps a video source of the interview will help. I've added one. If you can cite evidence that the video was doctored, you might consider adding that. If you feel that this article misconstrues Cuccinelli's comments by omission, you could attempt to fill in that gap. You could also cite a published counterpoint to Ron Charles's criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.21.250 (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Inspiration? Bible reference?

It gives part of the reason for the inspiration of the poem, but was it this poem that I read had some sort of Bible reference as part of its inspiration? Misty MH (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Was there some other text that partly was included in, or inspired, this poem? Misty MH (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)