Template talk:Liberty/Archive 1

Statue of Liberty

The Statue of Liberty is a nice idea, but I'm afraid it could be seen as too exclusively American. It's such an iconic American image, after all. There should be an image with more international appeal. Fishal 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go further and say that it's absolutely unacceptable to use the Statue of Liberty as a neutral symbol of freedom. It represents a very specific American brand of freedom, and many people in many other countries strongly disagree that the USA represents true freedom (that's not my view, it's a cultural fact). This is certainly not the way forward for what's supposed to be a culture-neutral, international encyclopedia. I've removed the image and the template looks alright without it. If anyone can think of something better then it can always go back where the image was. I'm skeptical whether such a graphical representation of a pretty abstract concept exists though. BigBlueFish 10:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the painting, Liberty Leading the People?--TBCΦtalk? 20:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Even worse, as it symbolises a specific and violent revolution, covering the freedom of an even smaller population than the States', and is far less recognisable and iconic in thumbnail form. BigBlueFish 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just let the idea go of trying to visualize or personify a concept. It is intellectual laziness. Lord Metroid 14:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Free software

I didn't think it was appropriate for the link for "software" in the template be changed from free software to free software movement. However, the more philosophical nature of the latter article is more fitting for the template. Good idea. --71.169.129.212 18:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think sure freedom of the use of software really compares either in scope or significance with the other freedoms (Freedom of speech, assembly etc.) listed in this template. Unless this template intends to cover a very long list of forms of freedom, i.e. Free trade, Freedom of information etc. This stikes me as a subtle self-reference which should be removed from this template. LukeSurl 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is an outrageous abuse of terminology to list "free software" with the fundamental freedoms of modern society. I am going to remove it. Remy B 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Updating the template

I would like to review the categorisation of the template, esp the "other" section. I will do some work on this in the next couple of days, any help welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have re-categorised most of the existing links, added some, but have taken out some that were under "other". I tried to differentiate between concepts/areas/rights. This is at time artificial, however the test case for rights was whether the "freedom" was a recognised human rights (treaties etc). In this way the freedom template is more compatible with the rights template. There is still an overlap between the two templates, but I am not too bothered about that. Any help, suggestions, feedback welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

moved civil liberties from rights to area - "Civil"--SasiSasi (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Think we should try to avoid listing specific freedoms as "Freedom of ..." Leaving that to the heading emphasizes what is different about each item. (Also helps keep focused on freedoms, so other types of rights don't get in there.) Zodon (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thats fine by me.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-determination

Is Self-determination a human right, freedom, political freedom? --Natkeeran (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I think it can be either. all freedoms listed are recognised as rights, i.e. the right to freedom of expression. The right to self-determination is recognised in the universal declaration of human rights for example. But, as the article indicates it is a bit more complicated than that, because the right to self-determination is a group right or peoples' right and relates to state sovereignty. For example, some indigenous people claim the right to self-determination, but as this may lead to calls for independence or secession, it may not be recognised by the nation state in which they are located. Not sure if this helps... --SasiSasi (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)