Talk:Liberty Bell

Confusing Passage

I find the following passage confusing: "The first media mention of the bell's crack is in 1846. Nine years later, in February 1846, the Public Ledger reported that the bell was rung the day following Washington's Birthday, on February 23, 1846."

1846 is not 9 years later than 1846. Is this an error, or am I reading it wrong? Odd error for a featured article if it is one. 149.20.204.94 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone added what amounts to a bad introductory sentence. Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Another confusing and mangled passage, possibly from a previous bad edit

"Chicago and San Francisco obtained its after presenting petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of children."

Obtained what? There seems to have been text here that was deleted and not replaced. In any case, the sentence is malformed and needs to be edited properly. The sentence in question is between footnotes 67 and 68. Wyclif (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. Somewhere in the fifteen years that this article has been a FA, it was damaged there. I've fixed it. Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The verse from Leviticus on the inscription from Leviticus is concerning 'The Year of Jubilee"

Leviticus is obscure to most people and so mentioning this is the context of the verse make it improved over 'fine print'. Whirlingmerc (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Do the sources you used deal with Biblical interpretation or do they deal with the Liberty Bell? Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

both Whirlingmerc (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

however I can select and limit to sources that explicitly mention both. Additionally the year of Jubilee is commonly seen by many theologians at pointing to freedom in Jesus so you may be brining up a difference without a distinction. Not sure you can separate use of the year of Jubilee on the Bell from that. Whirlingmerc (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, why does the reader seeking information on the Liberty Bell need information on this dispute? If you could tie it to the intent of the intent of the Pennsylvania legislature ordering the bell in the first place, I can see that, but a textual dispute about the verse that happens to be on the bell seems a bit irrelevant. Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a strong connection. The bell was cast in 1751 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of William Penn’s Charter of Privileges (1701), Pennsylvania’s original constitution. The year of Jubilee happens every 50 years. The founders used the Jubilee verse from Leviticus 25:10 to commemorate 50 years of Pennsylvanian liberty, drawing a symbolic parallel between the biblical Jubilee’s themes of release and restoration and their vision of civil, religious, and moral freedom. Whirlingmerc (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

== Inscription and the Jubilee Theme ==

The inscription on the Liberty Bell, “Proclaim LIBERTY Throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof”, is taken from the Bible, Leviticus 25:10. This verse refers to the Year of Jubilee, a time every 50 years in ancient Israel when slaves were freed, debts forgiven, and land restored.

The bell was commissioned in 1751 by the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly to commemorate the 50th anniversary of William Penn’s 1701 Charter of Privileges, which granted religious freedom and political self-governance to the colony. The use of Leviticus 25:10 was a symbolic choice linking this civil milestone to a biblical model of justice and liberty.

Isaac Norris, Speaker of the Assembly and a Quaker, is credited with selecting the verse. His religious background and commitment to liberty made the Jubilee theme particularly fitting. The inscription was likely intended to highlight the Assembly’s values of freedom, fairness, and the rule of law, rather than to address slavery directly—though later generations, particularly abolitionists, adopted the bell as a symbol of emancipation.

Modern historians such as Gary B. Nash, David Hackett Fischer, and John C. Paige have emphasized that the verse was originally chosen not as a universal declaration of emancipation, but to commemorate a local event celebrating 50 years of Pennsylvanian liberty under the Charter of Privileges. Whirlingmerc (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You would need page numbers for the works you cite. Aside from that, I don't have strong objections, so long as the new section is kept short. Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

understood. I do think it's interesting that the Jubilee happens every 50 years and the Pennsylvania lawmakers chose the 50th anniversary to make the bell with that inscription. ( Ties to the abolition movement did come later as did other controversy of the symbolism and insufficiencies and maybe that belongs in the articles directly on Leviticus 25 or Jubilee. ) Whirlingmerc (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

We still need a citation for the first paragraph you added. Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

References

"The Year of Jubilee' is significant regarding freedom but controversy surrounds that

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is particularly controversial as "The Year of Jubilee' is tied to the job description of Jesus hence the proposed section. It is well established that The year of Jubilee, Isiah 61, Psalms 146, 147 and Jesus declaration of fulfilling that in Luke 4 makes it relevant. Not a small part of the controversy is whether a political proclamation on a bell is arguably insufficient to meet the job description of Jesus.

Controversy Over Inscription The Liberty Bell bears Leviticus 25:10 which concerns 'The Year of Jubilee": "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Though intended to symbolize American freedom, theologians argue it reflects only part of the Jubilee's biblical vision—debt release, emancipation, and land restoration. Jesus redefines Jubilee in Luke 4:18–19: "He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives... to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor," echoing Isaiah 61. Psalms 146 and 147 which likewise describe God's care for the oppressed, hungry, and imprisoned. N.T. Wright sees Jesus’ mission as a new exodus—“Jesus was not simply announcing a new social program. He was embodying the return from exile, the real liberation, the Jubilee of God.” Christopher J. H. Wright adds that Jubilee justice cannot be fully realized by human systems. Theologians have warned against politicizing Jubilee. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “Political action cannot save man. Only the cross and the resurrection can.” Howard Thurman similarly stressed that “freedom, in its truest sense, is not bestowed by the state but is the gift of God to the human spirit.” John Stott summarized, “The Gospel is not a manifesto for political reform. It is a message of rescue from sin and death—a deeper bondage than any social condition.” Liberation theologians nonetheless highlight the irony of invoking Jubilee amid American slavery. Thurman emphasized that "true freedom requires identification with the oppressed," while Cone called such symbolism "incomplete civil interpretation." Perspectives differ: some view Jesus’ proclamation as spiritual liberation; others see it as a mandate for structural change. Whirlingmerc (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

And I am sure that Rashi and many other Jewish commentators have had much to say about that pasuk. The question is, does the reader really need to know anything about the verse other than the fact that in the 19th century it was interpreted by some as anti-slavery? Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

perhaps it belongs more directly in the Leviticus or Jubilee articles Whirlingmerc (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Incredibly unclear phrasing as to the development of the crack[s]

Despite the acknowledgement that there is no known date as to when the bell cracked, the introduction appears to contradict itself multiple times which makes for very difficult reading and raises doubts as to the legitimacy of featured articles; if a featured article can get something like this so wrong, it undermines the quality of them all.

The third opening paragraph states "The bell did not acquire its distinctive large crack until after almost a century of heavy use"; it supplements this by providing a rough date: ""the most likely explanation is that a narrow split developed in the early 1840s after nearly 90 years of hard use".

However, the prior paragraph implies that the bell cracked circa 1752; "The bell first cracked when rung after its arrival in Philadelphia". This is especially misleading since it continues to describe multiple events chronologically (its early usage, its likely ringing in 1776, and then the contradictory crack development in the 1840s).

This section needs extensive reworking to clarify the multiple instances of the bell cracking. Conrad Andrew (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the language it passed review with in 2010, more or less. Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Impartiality in opening paragraph

The opening sentence feels somewhat impartial, while it probably meets standards, I think it'd be better to say something along the lines of "The Liberty Bell is a monument located in Philadelphia, it is considered to be an iconic symbol of American Independence."

Surely it'd be better to state what the bell is rather than what it's thought of as? (Also it frankly just feels somewhat biased to an American viewpoint.) AutisticIris (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The sentence is accurate as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this! BhamBoi (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the editors who brought this article to featured status. It took a lot of work and cooperation. We sometimes forget to thank those who skillfully crafted this excellent article. Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 12:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

On behalf of the many who improved this article, including help from the National Park Service back in the day, thank you for the kind words. Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent changes

An IP is making wholesale changes to the article without adding any new sourced material. Most notably, they are saying it is a symbol of abolitionism at the start of the lede. This is present tense. Today, the bell is a symbol of American independence first of all, for example its use on the emblem of the current America 250 celebration. Thoughts? Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder about a compromise with the IP poster that would explain the bell was first called the "Liberty Bell" by abolitionists. This is factually correct and avoids leading with what seems like a disputable judgment about its, er, resonance today? WCalebMcD (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What about something like "The Liberty Bell is an iconic symbol of American Independence located in Philadelphia. First named that by abolitionists ..." Something like that anyway. I don't think the abolitionists should get top building, but this puts them in close second place. Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection, and without engagement here from the IP, I've done it. Let's see what happens. Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)