Talk:Liberty Bell/Archive 1

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

Casting and Early History
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/penncharpriv.htm

Vandal
Someone at this IP address 71.60.11.125 is vandalizing the article, how do we get the IP banned?

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)

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)

PROVINCE OF PENSYLVANIA (sic)
Is it actually spelled "Pensylvania" on the bell? Or is it a misprint here? RSLitman 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the way it is spelled. It is not uncommon to see "Pennsylvania" spelled that way on maps, documents, etc. of the period.  Alphageekpa 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * I also removed the following, as non-notable. Alphageekpa 16:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the song "Down Go Down" from his posthomously relased album From A Basement On The Hill, Elliott Smith sang: "She was hard and as cracked as The Liberty Bell" refering to the state the bell is in.

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

Possible Conflict
The second paragraph (Its most famous ringing...) creates a conflict with the US Declaration of Independence Myths section US_Declaration_of_Independence. One state's that the Liberty Bell was rung on July 8, 1776, while the other claims this as a myth from a children's story.

Clarification?

--Sam 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

top dab link
I'm restoring the dab link. I understand the perceived redundancy, but a dab link is a navigational aid, whereas the see also section is supposed to be for related/supplementary topics. That is to say, they serve completely different purposes. Additionally, as a march and especially a Sousa fan, I may very likely search for "Liberty Bell" intending to find the march and end up here instead. I imagine plenty of others would as well. The only difference between the two article names is that the other one contains an additional specifier, which is exactly the situation dab links are intended to handle. In short, top dab links may be somewhat unsightly, but they're a widely-accepted standard and serve a specific useful purpose, and removing the link only harms usability. --Fru1tbat 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to that logic, shouldn't you also have a dab link for Liberty Bell 7? Alphageekpa 11:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though because "Liberty Bell 7" is rarely, if ever, mentioned without the "7", it's not quite the same (also because the "7" is part of the actual name, not just disambiguating text). Someone would more reasonably be expected to be looking for the march by typing in just "Liberty Bell" than the capsule. I wouldn't object if someone thought it were necessary to include it, though. If there are more than two other uses, perhaps Liberty Bell (disambiguation) needs to be written, and the dab link directed there instead... --Fru1tbat 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

International
I dont see how the liberty bell is an international symbol of freedom. I'm not arguing against its importance, just its use as a symbol internationally. The white dove, candel (such as Amnesty international) are all symbols ive seen but never the liberty bell. Could we just scrap that one line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmisanthrope (talk • contribs)


 * I have to agree - at the moment the assertion that the bell is used an international symbol of freedom is backed up only by US sources; no actual example of such use is provided. "Regarded by some as an international symbol of freedom", perhaps?  Anecdotally, I can provide that I have never seen it used in Britain as a symbol of freedom; but obviously I can't prove it has never been used as such (due to the difficulty of proving negatives).  We seem to have no source saying that the bell is internationally regarded as a symbol of freedom; only that some (within the US) regard it as such, which is not the same. TSP 20:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction whether it was rung to announce congress in 1774
In the opening statement is stated Previously, it had been rung to announce the opening of the First Continental Congress in 1774 and after the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775., whereas in a section below is stated Although it is untrue, popular belief holds that the bell was rung to announce the opening of the First Continental Congress in 1774 and after the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775. - So, what's the truth? (and sources?) - Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

another replica
http://www.libertybellmuseum.com/exhibits/Womansbell.htm says there's one in the Washington Memorial Chapel. Шизомби (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "LBMuseum" :
 * FAQs about the Liberty Bell
 * FAQs about the Liberty Bell

The 20th/21st Century stuff
A lot of that (Taco Bell, the guy who hit it with a hammer, etc.) seems unnecessary. There are far more important things (Like tolling for the deaths of Marshall, Harrison, etc.) that would be better. NuclearWarfare 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, at present (2009-05-10) there is NO information about the bell from 1915 to the present... The article just leaves off with it touring various world fairs, and then jumps straight to the next section, talking about when to visit it at the Liberty Bell Center. It seems like 20th/21st century stuff should be included in equal proportion to the stuff from before then, just because it's important history of the bell as well. Why is it currently in the Liberty Bell Center? How long has it been there? When was the metal structure welded to its inside added? Etc, etc. User:Random Tree —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Taco Bell Ad
I knew this ad was in The Philadelphia Inquirer on April 1, 1996. I wondered if perhaps the person who originally put in the item about the ad being in The New York Times had the papers confused. However, I just checked an online database which I am entitled to use as a cardholder of a local library system, and I see that the ad was indeed in the N.Y. Times that day, too. Now I wonder if it was also in other papers around the country that day. RSLitman 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From the website of PainePR, the firm responsible for the advertisement: "PainePR helped place full-page ads in five major daily newspapers, announcing that Taco Bell had purchased the Liberty Bell. We also distributed an early morning press release announcing Taco Bell's purchase of the Liberty Bell over a national wire. A second wire release was distributed later in the day announcing the purchase was a joke." []  Alphageekpa 19:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the ad said that the purchase was to reduce the federal debt. Not possible! The bell is owned by the City of Philadelphia, along with Independence Hall, not the federal government.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Bell Savings Bonds
I have found several sources, none reliable, that state that Congress passed a resolution in 1961 that the replicas will be rung at 2PM on every 4th of July to honor the hour when the Declaration of Independence was signed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that would be good to have, I'll start looking myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A NY TImes search and a Google news search didn't turn up anything. I'll keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Owner: City of Philadelphia
It is well known to Philadelphians that the City of Philadelphia owns the bell, and Independence Hall and Congress Hall, and leases them to the Park Service. What we need is an inline citation documenting that fact. I can do that for buildings, but not for the bell. Perhaps someone else knows how.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in the article, twice. It is accepted at FA that when several sentences in a row come from the same source, you may put a footnote on the final sentence.  There is no need for anything to be done on this front.  Thanks for your thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bellfounding
I'm very pleased to see this article featured, very interesting read. May I suggest a link to Bellfounding somewhere in this article. Perhaps in the lead at 'cast'. I'd do it myself but it's a bit of a conflict of interest, as most of Bellfounding was written by me. I think this link would benefit both articles. Thanks, -France3470 (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"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)

There is a photo essay on-line at the Chicago Tribune describing the bell's display at the 1893 Centennial Exposition in Chicago which says: "Chicago police guarded the Liberty Bell. An extension of the bell's famous crack was discovered while in Chicago and may have been caused while traveling by rail." This crack is not mentioned in this section. Is this statement about the crack extension true? Should it be included? — Mmathu (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One should also link to the cracks in liberty itself. Wiki has articles on DMCA, Patriot act and the like. (Talking here about liberty/freedom for the majority (honest) people, which is being eroded daily by such laws, not to mention all the petty laws (like traffic, parking, biking, jaywalking) that make everyone an offender somehow to justify that harsh punishments and cracks in the freedom are needed.)

Canuckguy 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Any more thoughts ? 70.54.202.152 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one's replied in two years. When I renovated this article this summer, I did put in info on the Chicago crack and about the February 23, 1846 incident (not the 22nd, that was a Sunday so they made it the next day.)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Back then they had no quality assurance (article updated as well). Basically that would be called a quarter-assed job, but "lack of quality assurance" sounded better in the article. Thoughts ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.202.152 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would be original research. But note that there is the discussions of the errors made both at the Foundry and in Philly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

P HILAD A
Can someone explain what is this Abbreviation? Most importantly - why the letter A is written in this way( A )? (Not for example like this: PHILADA. or PHILAD.) (Are there other cities that it was customary to transliterate their names at that time?) (Translated from non-English language using Google translation) 79.181.16.171 (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, but it appears to have been a way of making abbreviations at the time, note the abbreviation of "opportunity" in the letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Liberty(7) Bell(4) Code
Gematria or isopsephy has been around for at least 2,500 years, if not much longer! It was/is practiced by the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, etc. and appears in English. Although the gematric sum of words is usually associated with this practice, i.e. English=74 (E5+n14+g7+l12+i9+s19+h8) and gematria=74 (g7+e5+m13+a1+t20+r18+i9+a1), simply counting the number of letters in a word/name/phrase is 'Step 1'. Liberty(7) Bell(4) is very symbolic since it symbolizes 7/4: July 4th. The Forever Stamp utilizes both aspects of gematria with its picture of the Liberty(7) Bell(4) and Forever=74 (F6+0+r18+e5+v22+e5+r18 [O=15 or zerO, i.e. GOD=7_4]). For a scientific explanation of the significance of 7_4, see the NASA presentation Identifying 'True Earth-like Planets' - All New Worlds Are Built On 7_4 (like Earth) or 6_4 at http://exep.jpl.nasa.gov/exep_exoMtgPosters.cfm - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 75.74.156.102 (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I had never noticed that. However, I do not think it is worth inserting into the article.  Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture
It might be nice to add a section about the bell in pop culture, like its reference in the movie National Treasure. --Eustress (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Section previous existed, but has been deleted. Tends to fall under WP:TRIV and WP:IPC and didn't really add anything to the target article. Alphageekpa (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be trivia, but it's important trivia: apparently there is a legend that the bell we call the Liberty Bell is actually a modern replica that was cast complete with its crack. This is supposedly 'confirmed' in the movie "National Treasure." I haven't seen the movie; I learned this from comments in an article relating to other national monuments. I'm guessing that this legend is fairly widespread, and thus might be worth addressing. Kinsler33 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to note that works of fiction such as National Treasure are indeed fictional. No thinking person would assume it to be historically accurate.Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Bell vandalized in 2001
The liberty bell was vandalized in 2001. As a result of this act, the National Park contacted the Philadelphia Museum of Art restoration board who then contacted the Boeing Company in Ridley Park PA. Boeing personnel utilized Non-destructive test to evaluate the bell. The report is documented at the following web sites:

http://www.ndt-ed.org/AboutNDT/SelectedApplications/Boeing-Liberty%20Bell/NDT-%20Liberty%20Bell.htm

http://www.asnt.org/publications/materialseval/solution/sep03solution/sep03sol.htm

Flyer63216 (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look at it. The vandalism is briefly mentioned near the end of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Claim concerning ringing on 4-Jul-1776
The article had (I have deleted it) in the lead, an unsourced claim regarding the bell being rung on 4-Jul-1776. The article said, "While the bell could not have been rung on that Fourth of July, as no announcement of the Declaration was made that day..." (my emphasis). This is a logical fallacy. It is entirely possible that, "no announcement of the Declaration was made that day" but this fact, in and of itself, does not prove the bell could not have been rung that day. The bell could have been rung that day for any one of a number of reasons, including the one actually given in the article. What the article says is that the bell was rung upon hearing of the, "vote for independence" and, if you read the article on the Declaration of Independence you will see that the vote was taken on 2-Jul-1776. It is therefore at least possible that, as the article actually says, the bell ringer was celebrating the vote itself rather than the public declaration. The section, "Becoming a symbol (1847–1865)" (that the lead is supposed to be summarising) does not attribute the ringing on that day to any specific cause. It merely says that a boy turned up with instructions to ring the bell. From this it would appear that the editor of the lead has made at least one incorrect assumption resulting in the whole sentence starting, "While the bell could not have been rung..." attempting to refute a claim not made in the article. And for that reason I have deleted it.  Cottonshirt  τ   04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've modified the language in the lede to make it clear that if it did ring on July 4, 1776, it was for reasons other than independence, and made a corresponding change to the body. It's under "Early days".  The section you cite mentions the development of the myth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Commemorations
Just a note. It would be debatable to say that more people have seen the one particular forever stamp than the original Liberty Bell stamp of 1926, esp since there were more than 307 million printed, an unusually high number for this and any period. It was a very popular stamp. In 1926 there was no tv, no internet, very little radio and the telephone was not commonplace -- even if it was, long distance was expensive in the early days of telephone. Hence the mail was the primary means of communication in those days, and stamps were seen by almost the entire public, unlike today. i.e.When was the last time you used a stamp? Christmas? To be fair to the argument I suppose you could say that 'today' more have seen the forever stamp. Anyway, I don't mind mentioning the forever stamp, since it was the last stamp, so far, to depict the Liberty bell, but I would recommend that we omit the part about it increasing in value, as that is a detail about the stamp in terms of postage, not about its subject, the Liberty Bell and the commemoration. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll give it some thought. Your points are valid.  But one reason I'm trying not to overemphasize the 1926 stamp was because it didn't depict the Liberty Bell.  It depicted a replica.  Look at the supports of the bell on the 1926 stamp, they are nothing like what the Liberty Bell hangs from.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a point also, but the stamp commemorates 'the' Liberty bell. It doesn't make much difference if the engraver used a photograph, painting or a replica for the model for the engraving. Though there are graphic discrepancies in the stamp design, the stamp still commemorates the Liberty bell and what it symbolized. Anyway, just thought details about the forever stamp were a bit tangential. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed the detail. Thank you for your edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Btw, the link to the citation for that statement (ref# 103) is not a dead link per se, but it doesn't take you to the intended page, so I marked it as such yesterday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll look around for a replacement. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Analysis and Cracking.
Many decades ago I read a technical article saying that the bell cracked because it did not contain enough phosphorus. The analysis given at http://www.ushistory.org/libertybell/facts.html does not show any phosphorus. (That analysis and its inconsistency over different parts of the bell might be good to add to this article.) I have no idea where I might have read about this, except that it was some technical/science source. I am not independently knowledgeable about bell metal analysis. I do not know if this can be easily checked out. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.174.248 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read the analysis from the Winterthur Museum referenced in the article. I don't recall anything about phosphorus.  I no longer have it, I can't afford the space to keep all the papers I get to write FAs on the ground they may some day be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

kind Help for translation requested
Hello, Please, your help is needed to translate to french a sentence in the section Early days : "Adieu. The Bell rings, and I must go among the Grave ones, and talk Politiks." I would like someone to confirm the meaning of "Grave". Is it "the men of M. Grave" (and then, who was he ?), or "the serious (and grave) persons (with whom I must talk politics)". For the moment we trust this second idea is the right one and would like your confirmation. Or is there a third idea, which we don't even imagine. Thanks in advance (Ding a' dong !). Cordialement, et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Serious or "Solemn"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Liberty Bell (Portland, Oregon)
Not sure if Liberty Bell (Portland, Oregon) should be mentioned in the legacy section, or the see also section, if at all. Thought I would start a discussion here rather than editing this FA article directly. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is of a template that states "It is NOT requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality." It seems that if it is not requested, the template should be omitted altogether. Could you explain?  General Ization  Talk   02:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the template includes the article on which it appears in Category:Wikipedia impossible musical instrument audio files, which you just created, but again I'm unclear on the value of this category, as well as the seemingly doublespeak wording of the template.  General Ization   Talk   02:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

International Yet Again
Harking back to the unanswered questions elsewhere going back most of a decade....

I modified: "By 1885, the Liberty Bell was internationally recognized as a symbol of freedom, and as a treasured relic of Independence"

To: "By 1885, the Liberty Bell was widely recognized as a symbol of freedom, and as a treasured relic of Independence"

User:Wehwalt suggested "By 1885, the Liberty Bell had gained international recognition as a symbol of freedom, and as a treasured relic of Independence"

Which doesn't change the fact that evidence hasn't been presented for this. The Liberty Bell is a US symbol representing US-specific events; the idea that it would be internationally recognised as a symbol of freedom is a pretty big claim, and as far as I can tell has never been sourced - it isn't in the only source given near that passage (to the Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia). TSP (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In fact the source is particularly specific about what recognition it had received by 1885: "Once firmly fixed in the American mind as an avatar of all they believed their nation to be, the Liberty Bell was sent to and fro across the continent." I don't think it mentions international recognition at any point.  TSP (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it did (I don't have it before me) but as it's proven controversial I will not press the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Tone, note, frequency
Has the frequency of the bell's sound ever been noted? (I think that a strong wind or air current would produce enough energy for such a measurement) knoodelhed (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been a few years since I researched this article and I don't remember one way or the other seeing anything on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've located apparent authentic video of the LB being rung inside its exhibit space for a July 4 ceremony. knoodelhed (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * I am English. I had never heard of the Liberty Bell, until it was mentioned in some film and wondered what it was. I would pass the Whitechapel Bell foundry in London most days and never knew it was originally cast there. And 15 full sized replicas were cast there for the 1976 celebrations as well. 90.217.85.4 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (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)


 * The source I cited was:
 * http://www.gophila.com
 * I could have also cited:


 * http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/inq051402.htm
 * http://www.frommers.com/destinations/philadelphia/A32266.html
 * http://www.microstrain.com/news/article-21.aspx
 * I'm going to add the sentence fragment back in with this reference:

--evrik 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Liberty Bell: From Obscurity to Icon, Independence National Historical Park


 * 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)

I am European, but have lived in the US most of my life. I like to think I am well-rounded, but I must admit, I had NEVER heard of the Liberty Bell before moving to the US. I often have casually polled my EU friends about it, and I have yet to meet somebody from Europe who has heard of the Bell outside of the US. For what it is worth, a colleague of mine from Switzerland (college professor) has just been offered a job at U Penn in Philly. When I told him "You should visit the Liberty Bell", he had no clue what I was referring to. And this is a rather very well cultured 45 year old man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.5 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'm Australian and I've known about the Bell since I was a kid - after all it was on stamps I collected. I guess one issue here is that Americans don't realise the extent to which close allies like Britain and Australia are disparaging of America's claim to be the leader of the "free world" etc and dismissive of its history - at times quite unfairly. For obvious reasons the British don't idolise the American War of Independence and resent America supplanting them as English-speaking superpower (though the latter is rarely stated). Hence it is unsurprising that the Liberty Bell doesn't have the same recognition in Britain and British-aligned countries such as Australia, despite their saturation in American culture.  Continental Europeans are probably more objective.  Israel arguably has a closer alliance with the USA and a significant American-derived population.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm another Aussie, and I very much doubt that one in a thousand here have ever heard of a "Liberty Bell" much less know that it is associated with America. I most heartily agree with the the observation that Americans in general seem completely oblivious of the way that so many outside the USA, even in countries that are generally sympathetic to the values of USA, strongly resent the assumption that the purely domestic symbols and values of America are universally venerated. It's an interesting story, but a "internationally recognised"? What tosh! Baska436 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "even in countries that are generally sympathetic to the values of USA" - LOL, do you know such countries? --77.190.222.49 (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably not as known as some monuments, like the Statue of Liberty, but I'm just saying what the source is saying there. And I'm thinking it is known abroad.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, it's not worth arguing about, it's just an observation. From the perspective of Kansas you might be thinking it is "internationally recognised". Internationally, they might be thinking something quite different. But what does that matter? Baska436 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not the Whitechapel Bell
The original bell was cast in Whitechapel, but the current bell is only 'most' of the metal of the original bell. Metal was also added when melted down. The current bell was cast in then British America, NOT Whitechapel. This should be made clear in the opening passage. The 1976 bell presented by the Queen was cast in Whitechapel. The 15 replicas were cast in Whitechapel To have an authentic replica it would need to be cast in the Philadelphia foundry, which I am sure has long gone and built over. 90.217.85.4 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of Metal
The article states... In 1975, the Winterthur Museum conducted an analysis of the metal in the bell, and concluded that "a series of errors made in the construction, reconstruction, and second reconstruction of the Bell resulted in a brittle bell that barely missed being broken up for scrap".[13] The Museum found a considerably higher level of tin in the Liberty Bell than in other Whitechapel bells of that era, and suggested that Whitechapel made an error in the alloy, perhaps by using scraps with a high level of tin to begin the melt instead of the usual pure copper.[14] The analysis found that, on the second recasting, instead of adding pure tin to the bell metal, Pass and Stow added cheap pewter with a high lead content, and incompletely mixed the new metal into the mold.[15] The result was "an extremely brittle alloy which not only caused the Bell to fail in service but made it easy for early souvenir collectors to knock off substantial trophies from the rim".[16]

This makes no sense. The bell was cast in Whitechapel and then melted down and recast in America adding further metal. It is impossible to analyse the "alloy" of the original Whitechapel casting. The company was formed in 1570, 191 years before they cast the Liberty bell. So, I think they have good idea of how to make bells. 90.217.85.4 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you review the original report as I did, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once metal is added it is not the same alloy. It is that simple. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's not completely mixed, they can go from that. The report seemed reasonable to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty Bell. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301172910/http://justicebell.com/justice-bell/bell-tour-stories/ to http://justicebell.com/justice-bell/bell-tour-stories/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Liberty Bell. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525151350/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/25.2/hoch.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/25.2/hoch.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808001437/http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/maps/map.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/maps/map.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419204831/http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/inq032402.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/inq032402.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419133730/http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/ap033102.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/ap033102.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007155511/http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/inq103102.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/news/inq103102.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618022106/http://www.tamu.edu/about/attractions/academicBuilding.html to http://www.tamu.edu/about/attractions/academicBuilding.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106011855/http://www.bcj.com/public/projects/project/44.html to http://www.bcj.com/public/projects/project/44.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization
Any idea when it went from being "a bell" to "the Bell" ? Note that in 1904 newspapers referred to it as "the bell", lowercase. DS (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to in the article or in popular discourse?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2. DS (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

TFA reruns
Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? I see there are 4 dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked at it. None of those links are on major points, and I've otherwise maintained it over the years. I'll work on replacing those links.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The deadlines are all avoided, other than one where we also have the archived version. It gives me an error if I try to remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)