Talk:Liberty Bell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Billy Penn, Our Founder Liberty Bell is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Liberty Bell has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Photos

I uploaded 3 photos:

But all need work (two can be cropped to remove people easily). Not sure if they'd be better than the picture here -- better lighting I think, though. Perhaps someone can offer some input and/or doctor up the pictures as necessary. CryptoDerk 09:58, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

My daughter and I agreed that the picture was too dark, so we lightened it up.--Bcrowell 17:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed non-notable "References to the Liberty Bell"

I removed the "References to the Liberty Bell" section, which had contained the following text:

  • Liberty Bell is the title of the fifth track of The Gathering's album "How to measure a planet?" (1998). The song is actually about the Liberty Bell 7 space capsule.
  • The Disney movie National Treasure (2004), starring Nicolas Cage, mentions the Liberty Bell among many other elements related to the Independence of the U.S.A..

Neither seems at all notable to me. The first one isn't even about the liberty bell itself, and the second one is about a movie that, AFAICT, only mentions the liberty bell. Lists like this always tend to turn into hairballs. I think the standard to keep in mind is that the information shouldn't be there if it's not going to be relevant or of interest to more than a tiny fraction of a percent of all readers.--Bcrowell 17:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) alex was here

This article needs updating, it has no reference to when the second crack first appeared, just when it was repaired. - 12-27-05

[edit] Demanding a refund?...

I don't know if this should be added to the article, so I'll submit it here as a more lighthearted anecdote in the history of the Liberty Bell:

As confirmed by a page on the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/liberty.htm), in 1976, the Procrastinators' Society (http://www.procrastinatorssociety.com/) staged a protest demanding the foundry refund the cost of the bell, as it was defective. The foundry, keeping with the tongue-in-cheek nature of the request, replied that they would cheerfully accept the return of the bell provided it was returned in the original packaging.

I don't know how widely the story is known, but it might be worth including as a lighter element in the history of the bell.

dafydd 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Crack" section

The text states that "this flaw grew to its present size on February 22, 1789, when the bell was tolled for several hours in the bell tower of Independence Hall in honor of George Washington's First Day of presidency." However, Washington's first day of presidency was in either March or April (depending on where it is counted from) according to the George Washington article. February 22, however, is Washington's birthday (according to the calendar in use at the time). So, was it rung in February to celebrate his birthday, or rung in March or April to celebrate his first day of Presidency? Either way, the article has to be changed ...--Canuckguy 02:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, did my own research based on one of the links provided in the main article and found that the Feb. 22 date is right, but it was 1846. Further mentioning that the bell was rung numerous times in the 1790s when Philadelphia was the capital woudln't make sense with the text as it was in the article (why would they ring a bell with a huge crack in it), but it would if the crack appeared in 1846, as the ushistory.org article states. --Canuckguy 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

__________________________

[edit] LINK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_Government_of_Pennsylvania

[edit] Casting and Early History

http://www.constitution.org/bcp/penncharpriv.htm

[edit] Perception abroad

A while back I added the bit about the Liberty Bell being much less known outside the US than within. I know that's a difficult to support with an objective citation. But it's true nonetheless. As a Brit who's lived in the US, I have some idea of how each country views the other. In the UK, the American flag and the State of Liberty would both be instantly recognised. The Liberty Bell, for whatever reason, would simply mean nothing to the average Brit. This perception is only more so once you leave England and go to France or Germany.

I guess the same parallel might be asking Americans to recognise certain French things. Yes, they'd know the Eiffel Tower, but would they know who Marianne is? For the French, the latter symbol is much closer to their national identity than the former, but that doesn't change the fact that the Eiffel Tower remains one of the most famous buildings in the world.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, if this article is going to include broad statements like the Liberty Bell is the "most familiar symbol of liberty" abroad, this has to be justified. I know it isn't true for England because no-one hear learns about it or cares about it. It is familiar in the US, and you can cite all kinds of examples from Taco Hell to the Liberty Bell March, so that's a fair encyclopaedic statement. But to say it is worldwide in fame needs justification. Medals awarded by American institutions don't count, obviously. I found half a dozen examples of replicas. One in Germany given immediately post WW2, so that one's propoganda. Two in Israel, no real surprise there given the very close social ties between those countries. The Japanese and Belgian ones are interesting and given the timings involved can't be easily dismissed. But how about some more, in countries with little to no political ties to the US.
It's easy to stand within your country and think something is world famous. I can't imagine people not knowing who the Queen is or who John Bull is or what's meant by the Mother of Parliaments. But someone in Lesotho might not know. Or in Iraq. Or Guyana. So, I have to temper my judgements with the experiences of others. If someone in Lesotho tells me she has no idea who the Queen is, that doesn't make her stupid, it just means the symbols important to me aren't important to everyone else.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I hear you. Anyone else? --evrik 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are we preoccupying ourselves with this issue? Trying to qualify the Liberty Bell's importance world-wide is unimportant. It is an important symbol in the U.S., with a unique history. That's enough. The article gains no credibility by including vague statements that cannot be supported by citations. If it's a FACT, and adds something to the article, fine. If it is your opinion, don't add it. If it's irrelevant, perhaps it belongs in another article. Let's move on. Alphageekpa 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The question isn't about preoccupation over trivia but whether or not vague and unsubstantiated statements can be left alone. Anyway, it's gone now, so I'm happy. I've moved the foreign bells bit to the Replicas section. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I could have also cited:
I'm going to add the sentence fragment back in with this reference:

--evrik 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are all American sites from an American perspective! Anyone can do a Google search for "Liberty bell" and "international" and come up with all kinds of stuff like that. Find me a British site, or a Brazilian one, or a Bangladeshi one, where the Liberty Bell is being used as a shorthand emblem for liberty without explanation because it is the "most familiar symbol of liberty". That's the key -- while it may be incredibly familiar within the US, there's no reason to assume it is outside. So why keep adding a trivial, unproveable point to the introduction of what is otherwise a good and interesting article? It's great you're proud of the Bell and see it as a potent symbol for your national values. But to extrapolate out from that and assume everyone on Earth sees the Bell in the same way is un-encyclopaedic at best. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, I have the facts behind me, and I've added the citation. --evrik 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We've agreed to split the difference, and are going with "has been used as an international..."; I think this satisfies both recognition of its use abroad while leaving its precise level of familiarity undefined. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I added the topline disambiguation because I arrived here looking for the article on the march. I searched on The Liberty Bell, which redirects here, thinking that that would be where the music article would be with the actual bell being at Liberty Bell. I will readd the disambig as I feel it is very useful, not so much for people getting confused, but to help people find the article they are looking for. Please discuss it here if you disagree. Thryduulf 11:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the disambiguation. I don't believe it is necessary. The two don't share the same name, "Liberty Bell" is distinctly different than "Liberty Bell March." And the link to the "Liberty Bell March" already exists in "See Also", which is more than sufficient...no need to have it on two places...redundant... In my opinion, inclusion in "See Also" is not only sufficient, but it is the correct place for this type of cross-linking... Alphageekpa 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/b/Talk%7ELiberty_Bell_cc04.html"