Talk:Brooklyn Bridge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cold War Bunker / Copyrighting

This is my first time editing a Wikipedia article, so I don't know how to do it all. The original section took copyrigted parts of an article from CNN and used them directly without attribution. I don't know how to mark it as a copyright violation or how to credit it properly. I added the link to the article, but beyond that, I cannot add one of those "this section needs to be cleaned up" banners. Can anyone help? (Feel free to delete this discussion when this issue is resolved).


Suspension Bridge vs. Combination Suspension and Cable-Stay Bridge?

While many people mistakenly refer to both types of bridges as suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges and suspension bridges are constructed very differently. As far as I can tell, the Brooklyn Bridge uses both approaches.

Since most of the sites that I can find on the bridge don't bother to get into the technical details, I'm having a hard time finding out the details of the cable stays. If they are there simply as a redundant safety measure, I don't really have a problem simply calling the bridge a "suspension bridge." If they are an integral part of the bridge nessecary to support it, I think that we should explain that the bridge is a composite of these two designs.

Does anyone know more about the cable stays? Skylark 23:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice the stay cables in addition to the main suspension cables and suspender ropes when you look closely at pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge. Having driving over the bridge many times, it's quite obvious that the stay cables are not there for looks--they are an integral load-bearing portion of the bridge. Given that, I believe it would be safe to call the bridge a suspension/cable-stay hybrid. Wxstorm 23:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cost?

Article lists the bridge was built at a price of $18 million. Can anyone verify whether this was 19th century dollars or inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars? I have a hard time believing *anything* could cost millions of dollars back then. -Kasreyn

The cost is given in contemporaneous dollars (you may check numerous issues of "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", all available online, for verification). The cost was tremendous -- equivalent to, perhaps, two billions of 2009 dollars -- but not unexampled. Firstorm (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving this here unless someone can provide a citation for it, or until I can verify that it's false.

"One source, possibly apocryphal, claims that the bridge's architect became disabled and communicated in code to give instructions on the bridge's completion." Vicki Rosenzweig

Nothing apocryphal about it at all, quite a wonderful, albeit tragic, story. The bridge was designed by Augustus Roebling. His son, Washington succeeded him, but was stricken with caisson disease (bends, due to working in compressed air with the sand hogs) and was unable to talk or move. His wife, Emily Warren Roebling, trained herself in engineering so she could communicate his wishes to the builders. Roebling was unable to leave his home and watched the construction via binoculars. Not sure about the code, but he was rendered speechless by the disease. Ortolan88
Yes, I thought that fact was pretty well known. here's one reference http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/period_3/emilyroebling.htm David dePaoli

John A Roebling Suspension Bridge

This is the only place I can find which equates the Brooklyn Bridge and the John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge, which I thought was in Cincinnati. Can you tell me a source for the statement: "(The Brooklyn Bridge) was renamed the John A Roebling Suspension Bridge in July 1983."?

This question is prompted by my intention to write an article about the bridge in Cincinnati.

Thanks,

Rdikeman 18:49, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


It's false. It would never have happened in New York, since 2.5 million people in Brooklyn would be up in arms. I think whoever wrote that is confusing it with this [1]. -- Decumanus | Talk 18:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

anonymous may 1 2004

Some years ago I read several books about the brooklyn bridge and believe one remark in the article is not quite right.

It is correct to say that Washington Roebling added the diagonal stays. He then claimed that even if all four suspension cables were to fail the bridge would still not fall, though it might sag in the middle. However, it can not be said that, "Roebling solved the problem that collapsed the 

Tacoma Narrows Bridge (in 1940)
by designing a bridge truss system that was six times as strong as he thought it needed to be".

That implies that without the stays the bridge would be in danger. Engineers believe that they are unnecessary,though they are such an identifiyng feature of the bridge. Later bridges did not incorporate them into the design.

It is ironic that a few years ago one of those stays snapped and killed a tourist walking on the bridge.

Also I believe that the comment about the bridge being 'six times as strong as it needed to be' was made by John Roebling to his son during the original design and had nothing to do with the diagonal stays.

Added oct 1, 2005. A BBC feature, "The Brooklyn Bridge" (belonging to "Seven Wonders of the Industrial World" by Deborah Cadbury, 2003) mentions the 'six times stronger as needed'-fact in the following context. The construction board decided not to order the wires/cables from Roebling's own cable factory. Another supplier in Brooklyn was granted the order. W. Roeblin considered this supplier as a man of ill reputation an not reliable. Later on wire samples of very poor quality were discovered, when first cables had already been deployed. Decision to carry on was taken on the grounds that, according to J. Roeblin's calculations, the strength of the cables was initially planned '6 times as high as needed'. Thus the partial defects should be more than compensated.

The thing about the bridge being 'six times as strong as it needed to be' was a requirement imposed on the design of the bridge structure. Today it's known as "Factor of Safety". An FS of 6 sounds about right considering uncertainties in the quality of the stone and steel used in the bridge. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Brooklyn El connections

This is an offshoot of User:SPUI/NYC Subway timeline to figure out the history of the Brooklyn side of the bridge and its connections to BRT elevated lines.

In 1904, the bridge connections were in place. The Fulton Street Line went to Fulton Ferry, with a stub end branching south of Sands Street end ending at the Main Street-Prospect Street intersection. The Myrtle Avenue Line had a connection under the bridge along High Street to the Fulton Street Line, with the merges away from the river. A station was on this connection just west of the bridge; the bridge station was at High and Sands Streets. After that connection, the Myrtle Avenue Line continued along Adams Street, merging with the old Main Line at York Street towards Fulton Ferry. An alternate route (maybe the other direction) went over Sands and Washington Streets. The former had a station on the old Main Line at Washington and York Streets (just before the latter merged); the latter on Washington Street just north of Sands Street. By 1914, the old Main Line was gone; the configuration at the end of the Myrtle Avenue Line is unclear.

  • September 24, 1883: The New York and Brooklyn Bridge Railway starts operations. [NYT 9-25-1883]
  • May 13, 1885: The old Main Line opens from York & Washington to Gates Avenue. [NYT 5-14-1885]
  • November 11, 1885: The old Main Line opens from York & Washington to Fulton Ferry. "At the same time the promenade connecting the York and Washington streets station with the bridge was thrown open to the public." [NYT 11-12-1885]
  • December 14, 1885: A new (?) pedestrian connection between the Brooklyn Bridge station and Sands & Washington station opens. [NYT 12-15-1885]
  • April 10, 1888: The Union Elevated Railroad (Myrtle Avenue Line) opens from City Hall (Adams Street) to the old Main Line. [NYT 4-10-1888]
  • December 24, 1891: The State Board of Railroad Commissioners approves the application of the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad to remove the old Main Line along Park and Grand Avenues, due to the merger with the parallel Union Elevated. [NYT 12-25-1891]
  • September 29, 1895: The new Brooklyn terminal on the Brooklyn Bridge opens. Myrtle Avenue Line trains are no longer run to the "old station". "All passengers who use the elevated railroad in upper Myrtle Avenue, will have to change cars, as the Fulton Ferry trains will not connect with the bridge, as formerly." The new station on the Myrtle Avenue Line is at High Street and Washington Street, above the bridge. The Fulton Street Line "enters by way of Fulton Street, and a railroad platform, directly above and in the middle of the two bridge platforms, conducts their passengers to the bridge cars." [NYT 9-29-1895] The old entrance to the bridge terminal was on Sands Street. [NYT 10-1-1895] The new terminal was at High Street. [NYT 9-30-1895]
  • June 28, 1898: The connection between the Myrtle Avenue Line and the Brooklyn Bridge opens. [NYT 6-29-1898]

With opens?

The bridge is featured in SimCity 3000 as the bridge but with opens, and in SimCity 4: Rush Hour as the "Medium Suspension" bridge type for avenues and highways.'

With opens - need a SimCity 3000 expert for this. Needs correction. Leonard G. 01:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Span?

The span of the bridge has been changed a few times in the article, but according to Google, all of them are wrong and the real span is 1,595 ft. However I don't want to change this because there may be different measurement bases for the span (eg. span across the river, total length of roadway, etc etc). [[2]] Richard W.M. Jones 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

But the article also says 1,595 feet. Perhaps you are mistaking that number with the total length. -- Samuel Wantman 22:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes,I am confused. But I'm trying to fact check this change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brooklyn_Bridge&diff=21577305&oldid=21490000 Richard W.M. Jones 09:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinion.

I don't think the guy who jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge show be merged with the Brooklyn Bridge article, rather stay on its own. Spawn Man 07:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sunrise image poll

Sunrise December 20, 2005, first day of the Transit strike

Please vote: Keep or Drop patsw 02:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Drop. The image quality is too poor for it to be useful. Postdlf 02:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Though I think a poll is premature, considering how there hasn't been any discussion—what's the reason for keeping the image? Postdlf 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Drop. Irregardless of image quality, this is an unsourced (did you take it, where did it come from?), copyrighted image that shouldn't be in the article, yet alone the file loaded onto Wikipedia. --Aude 02:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    According to the image info:
    The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author.
    In other words, it's my image; I have decided to relase all rights. The reason for keeping the image is that it is what one sees as they emerge from the stairway onto the bridge as the sun rises. As it was deleted without discussion. I could have reverted it without discussion. I invite Postdlf to take a better photo. patsw 05:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The tower is obscured by a street light. I think the bridge should be more prominently featured in the image for it to be in the article. It would be better off in the commons category Category:Brooklyn_Bridge. Bergsten 10:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"Edit" link for sections

I restored the "edit" links for individual sections of article back in place. note, the differnce can only be seen when looking at the article itself, not from the compare selected versions or diff. Shlomke 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

JFTR: The issues with the ugly/incomplete/technically dubious (pick one or more) infobox made it to Village pump (tech), my talk page, and now also to infoboxes considered harmful below WP:LEAD. -- Omniplex 19:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"I've got a bridge I'd like to sell"

What about the common reference in culture to an immigrant, or other newcomer to NYC, "buying" shares in the Bridge from a huckster?

It's mentioned in the "cultural significance" section. It would be nice if someone could track down the origin of this joke, however. Postdlf 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
DIdn't the straight dope run an article on this that mentioned that the bridge had been sold a number of times. Hrm it seems not. I know I've read somewhere in a discussion of that phrase that the bridge had been sold a number of times in the early going. I'll keep digging.--Crossmr 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

References to "selling the Brooklyn Bridge" abound in American culture,

But why?? I've seen this many times, and don't understand the significance. — Omegatron 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking at can't find the article I'd read on it, but it had been something to the nature of the bridge had been fraudelently bought and sold over 50 times--Crossmr 23:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the article mentioned: [3] 76.203.72.164 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the bridge the New New York City Icon?

Ever since they were built, the World Trade Center was the visual icon for quickly indicating to viewers "this is New York City". Of course, they're gone now. If you watch carefully, the Brooklyn Bridge is the new New York City icon. I'd put this in the article, but .... it's original research.  :-) RussNelson 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in the foreground of the best view of Manhattan, pointing at where the WTC used to be, so yes. Especially since they seem to have fouled up the design for the replacement for the WTC and seem to be going ahead with a bunch of boring glass rectangular things that have no real sense of location. The Brooklyn Bridge is still going to be the most interesting and distinctive (and recognisable) piece of architecture in the shot (given that that view makes the Empire State and Chrysler buildings quite small, and puts the Statue of Liberty out of the shot, off to the left). ErkDemon 10:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I watched The Hot Rock (film) recently. They filmed it in 1972 using the Brooklyn Bridge as the old New York City icon, and ... 3/4th of the World Trade Center as the new New York City icon. RussNelson 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Last photo is not from Pier 17

The current last image in the article, Brooklyn_Bridge_panorama_2006.jpg, cannot possibly have been taken from Pier 17. I was there yesterday and it is much closer to the bridge. This photo looks like it was taken from a boat in the NY harbor.MJ 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Many pictures

Goodness, there certainly are a lot of nice pictures but they ought to be better arranged. I suggest that the ones that are not about constuction be move out of the construction section, and any tall pictures in the "Panorama" section be moved into the Gallery. Oh, and the bridge was not under construction circa 1911, was it? Jim.henderson 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This and Manhattan Bridge article show the same vintage picture as `the bridge under construction'. Don't know which one it is, but someone who knows should remove one of them. Almathea 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. The picture in question clearly does not show stone towers with double, pointed arches. It seems a match for Manhattan Bridge, probably as seen from Jay Street near Tillary. "Gallery" section is still a mess, and "Panorama" section a terrible mess. Jim.henderson 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Safety Rating

Added more context to quote -- the bridge itself is not "poor" in terms of condition, but rather one of the access roads. I believe (but can't find a quote right now) it's the access road from downtown Brooklyn over the BQE.

Toddself 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pag293's mega-edit

What do people think of Pag293's mega-edit? The gallery, supposedly unneeded, has sat there for a long time with nobody removing any pictures. Seems like if it has too many pictures, someone would have removed at least one of them. But no. So I suspect that most people disagree with Pag293's assessment of the number of pictures. BTW, the bridge is an icon of NYC. Icons get used in imagery. RussNelson (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So is the World Trade Center, I fought for that article for more pictures, but I was wrong. Look, Wikipedia is not a gallery, it's a place for information. Do you want pictures? Go to the Commons, that's where you can find the same exact gallery! Pag293 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have more confidence in your suggestions if your use of Wikipedia was more competent. See the "Show preview" button? Use it. If you want to change the pictures, change the pictures in one edit, and we'll see what it looks like. If you want to change the movie references, change the movie references, and we'll consider that. Massive edits are hard for other editors to review. RussNelson (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I edited each section. I don't see what is your problem. The Images are all the same size now, presenting a neater article. There were WAY too many unnecessary pictures. Wikipedia is NOT a gallery. The pop culture section has been redone again, only with pictures relating to the Brooklyn Bridge in movies. Why would you need ANOTHER picture of the bridge in this section?

Now you keep reverting the Gallery Edits. The Gallery is not needed. There are already enough images of the bridge. Why do we need more? Plus this is what the Wikimedia Commons is for! Pag293 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that you make a dozen edits in quick succession, without any time for the rest of us to examine them to see if they make the page better. Make a SMALL change in ONE section, and then wait a few days. If nobody reverts it, make another SMALL change. This article is pretty much finished. Radical changes like the ones you're trying to introduce are not obviously good. Slow and steady, my friend. RussNelson (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GTAIV Broker.jpg

Image:GTAIV Broker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural significance

I removed most of this section again because it is just a large list of random unsourced items, that constitutes trivia. WP:TRIVIA discourages creating lists of random facts, and thats exactly what this section has become. The list has become more and more bloated with mention of any appearance of the bridge in some form of media. These are not integral to an understanding of the bridge. This is in line with a similar cleanup done to the Golden Gate Bridge per this discussion. VerruckteDan (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Lady scratching butt

Is the lady on the second picture scratching her butt, or am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture gallery

Huge picture galleries are not encouraged and needed (as per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:MOS#Images). That is why there is Commons and a prominent link to it (at the bottom of the page). -- P199 (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could afford a few more of these the images that were taken out, especially the historical images:--Jorfer (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Most of these pictures are no more than tourist snapshots. They don't add any encyclopedic content. Even too many historic pictures will just clutter the article. -- P199 (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Motivation for building

It would be interesting to mention something about why the bridge was needed, how long it took to plan, etc. -- Beland (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

The Brooklyn Bridge is featured prominently in several movies, off the top of my head, it's in (and in fact, destroyed in) both Cloverfield and I am Legend. Max.goedjen (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

1994 shooting section

"Baz was convicted of murder and sentenced to a 141 year prison term." Is this an error, or is this a fact? Viet|Pham (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is possible to get an unrealistically long jail term that is essentially life, but I am not sure about this specific case.--Jorfer (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all states have death penalties or tend to use them.--67.168.238.184 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just two of the items:

  • The construction of the Brooklyn Bridge is detailed in the 1972 book The Great Bridge by David McCullough[1] and in the first PBS documentary film ever made by Ken Burns, Brooklyn Bridge (1980).[2] Burns drew heavily on McCullough's book for the film and used him as narrator.[3]
  • After it opened, P. T. Barnum led Jumbo across the bridge, demonstrating its strength[4]

I would recommend using the time to find references and incorporate them into the article instead of removing them unless it is slander or libel.--Jorfer (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one way of doing things, how I'm not going to go down this path. With the greatest of respect, those who add material to Wikipedia should follow the policy of no original research and that material should be sourced. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, unless the information is sourced it really shouldn't just be blindly accepted. I also again make the point that this material does not look like trivia, but as it was marked as unimportant (that's basically what is being said by adding it to this section) then it should, again, not have been added. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Material is now incorporated into the article. Thank you for the references! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That "soon after" referring to Barnum is a problem - I looked previously for a good cite, found none. Encarta doesn't say when, only notes that it was "after the opening" (one source said about a year later). The panic was soon after. Tedickey (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah... sorry about that. I believe it's now been fixed by Jorfer. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

29 tons of steel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.244.101 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Height?

The height of the towers is not given. Both their height above the waterline, and their total height (from the bases of their foundations) should be included.

The template Template:Infobox Bridge provides for one height; it isn't clear which of the two should be used. Tedickey (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


May 30, 1883 Stampede

I checked the source cited (old NYT article) and found no mention of rumors that the bridge was about to collapse. Rather, the article claimed that the primary cause of the stampede was the combination of one woman tripping down a flight of stairs and another woman screaming, prompting the crowd to surge forward to see what had happened and inadvertently causing dozens more to tumble blindly down the stairs. Notyourbroom (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to make the topic more informative Tedickey (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
googling on "rumor brooklyn bridge collapse" finds 15,000 hits. The first page finds a NYT blog containing several useful links (including the one you tagged), as well as this, which corresponds to the questioned part of the statement. Tedickey (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A Parade of Elephants

The current statement in the article on this topic reads as follows:

On May 17, 1884, P. T. Barnum helped to squelch doubts about the bridge's stability—while publicizing his famous circus—when one of his most famous attractions, Jumbo, led a parade of 21 elephants over the Brooklyn Bridge.

There are now four (4) references to this event in the article. Perhaps the most authoritative, in spite of being a children's book, is Twenty-One Elephants and Still Standing by April Jones Prince, which I recently checked out from my local public library and examined.

At the end of the book, the author states that the story was inspired by and based on a real event, and provides references of her own.

For that reason, I will remove the "[dubious – discuss]" label on the reference to this book.

PlaysInPeoria (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the book a while ago, and can only recall that there were no references, only that the author stated that it was based on a real event. Since you have the book at hand, giving the references here would help other editors Tedickey (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was waiting for a response to my comment (your comment regarding the author's note is inaccurate). The book is categorized as "juvenile fiction". The author provides no references for the story (which is understandable, given the category). The author notes that she made up part of the story to make it more interesting:

Because of gaps in the historical record, I couldn't determine, for example, whether Barnum crossed the bridge with his elephants that night, or whether he met them in Brooklyn. In the end, I chose to include him in the crossing because he was certainly there in spirit

The author, rather than providing references, gives some guide to further reading (4 books and 3 urls). The urls do not contain information relevant to this discussion. Possibly the books do, but the author gives no indication that they do. For discussion (not reference):
  • Curlee, Lynn. Brooklyn Bridge. New York: Atheneum, 2001
  • Mann, Elizabeth. The Brooklyn Bridge. New York: Mikaya Press, 1996.
  • Redmond, Ian. Elephant. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2000.
  • Worth, Bonnie. Jumbo: The Most Famous Elephant in the World. New York: Random House, 2001.
  • www.barnum-museum.org
  • www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/nation/barnum_1
  • www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/nation/bbridge_1

Tedickey (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge march in mid-1980s

Wasn't there a march on the Bridge in the 80s by Haitians who were protesting the WHO or UN listing them as being the highest transmitters of AIDS along homosexuals? Correct me if I'm wrong , because I can't remember the exact details of it, but I'm a little surprised it's not mentioned in the article. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

History section

The history section is very sparse. It makes no mention of the New York Bridge Company (let's see how long that link stays red), and all of the political intrigue and corruption surrounding the planning and construction of the bridge. Many of the politicians of the day, like Boss Tweed and Henry Cruse Murphy were involved in the politics of the bridge. --rogerd (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Caissons

As I understand it, the towers were built atop caissons that were air-tight boxes constructed of heavy timber cribbing designed to support the masonry above. Workers in the pressurized caissons removed sand and rock underneath and the towers were allowed to subside. When a stable footing was reached, the caissons were filled with concrete.

Question is: what happened to the timber cribbing? Was it somehow removed or is it still down there forming a layer between the concrete and the masonry above? If it's still down there, is it subject to decay that might compromise the stability of the bridge structure? Is anyone monitoring subsidence of the towers?

Overall, the Construction section says very little about the actual construction of the bridge. Washington Roebling invented many of the techniques for design and construction of suspension bridges that are still in use today. He should be given due credit. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

John Roebling's injury

How did John Roebling get hurt? The article mentions that "collapsing bridge timbers crushed" his leg, but also that "Roebling's foot was badly injured by a ferry, pinning it against a pylon". Unless he was particularly unfortunate, I believe it must be one of the two. StefanVanDerWalt (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Googling on "John Roebling" crushed, "John Roebling" foot and "John Roebling" leg tends to support the latter. Synopsis: foot was crushed, toes amputated, died anyway (exact cause depends on source) Tedickey (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The ferry accident is given by Elizabeth mann in "The Brooklyn Bridge,"Scholastic literary Place. Kdammers (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The answer according to the NY Times is that the ferry was coming in, and it hit the pylon causing him to get crushed in timbers on the dock. So it is a bit of both. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F01E5DC1431E433A25757C2A9639C94629FD7CF Here is the LONG sentence from the article that is relevant: "In the summer of that year, while standing apon the rack of one of the slips of the Fulton ferry, directing the details of the survey, the shock of an incoming ferry-boat caused him to lose his balance, and one of his feet was terribly crushed by the heavy timbers that formed the rack." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.231.196 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Construction deaths

The text says about twenty-seven people died in the construction. The source given is an internet link which appears to be dead. My source ,(Elizabeth Mann, in Scholastic Liteary Place) a popular account for students, says twenty-one.Kdammers (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also claims "early into construction in 1872, however, collapsing bridge timbers crushed John Roebling’s legs, leaving him incapacitated; he later died of an infection related to this injury...." According to wikipedia's John A. Roebling article and the the Library of Congress, though, "in 1869, Roebling died from tetanus he had contracted in an accident on the bridge pilings." I'm modifying this detail in the main article. Seanherman (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Great-Bridge-Story-Building-Brooklyn/dp/067145711X
  2. ^ http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/brooklynbridge/about/
  3. ^ http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/burnsken/burnsken.htm
  4. ^ http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571960/p_t_barnum.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brooklyn_Bridge/Archive_1&oldid=937679635"