Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of the City

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

What does it mean?!

[edit]

I don't see anything anywhere on the page actually explaining what the term means.--CloutierFan02 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...James DeLancey 1703-1760 received the Freedom of the City in course of the Montgomery Charter. It also explains a bit of what the people wanted and gave to this individual. It may be all about the people in which had or have gained the trust in total capacity. Referring to the key of the city.David George DeLancey (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Freedom of the City is an honour bestowed by a municipality upon a valued member of the community, or upon a visiting celebrity or dignitary." Isn't that like 'Key to the City?'MaynardClark (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio material moved from article

[edit]

The following text is copyright 2005 The City of New York and was copied from http://www.nyc.gov/html/unccp/html/protocol/key.shtml to the main article before being moved here:

Removed. I think copyrighted text that isn't available under a GFDL-compatible license isn't allowed even on a talk page. The text constituted the entire main body of the page linked above, so you can still easily view it. --Ihope127 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This material should be recast before being added back into the article. --Theo (Talk) 17:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$70,000 worth of pearls left in taxi

[edit]

"Nestor Sulpico, a Filipino-American taxi driver, was awarded the Key to the City in recognition of his honesty after returning a bag containing black pearls worth $70,000 USD that had been left in his cab." -- The buyer, a 47-year-old hedge-fund manager, upon arriving at the Mercury Lounge, "jumped out - leaving behind the backpack containing the expensive booty. ... 'I felt like such a jerk,' he said. 'How could I be so careless with something so valuable? Too many cocktails, I guess.'". I guess. [1]

English Bias (as usual)

[edit]

The article starts off with English cities.

Can we not just have Cities ?

It would be useful to have an insert for glasgow as it has some, now peculiar, special rights.

See more here http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/AboutGlasgow/FreedomoftheCity/

-- 18:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Nick

As does Dublin, Cork, Galway (just to name a few based on a quick Google search). Indeed, one site said it was an Irish tradition dating back to the 14th Century. [2] And in Italy, too.[3] Also in the US, the town of Hopkinsville, Kentucky awards "Freedom of the City" (as opposed to "keys"); there have to be more US municipalities that do so. I will revise the intro accordingly. Alcarillo 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cities listed aren't listed BECAUSE they are English (or at least, if they are it isn't obvious). They appear to be included as they are notable examples, for instance specific priviledges or historic significance. If mentioning Glasgow or any other city adds something new to the article feel free to do so, for instance if there is something different about the Freedom of Glasgow to anything else mentioned (in the same manner as Dublin). However including it because it is a scottish city would undermine your argument. BeL1EveR 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...and is more prevalent in the United States." People from all over the world reads the articles at wikipedia. Why the need to point out whats most prevalent in the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertzxcv (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto

[edit]

Reverted some vandalism back to what it should have been.

removing OR

[edit]

I'm moving this sentence here as I'm pretty sure it isn't true, but couldn't find what it originally was in the page history.

"1980: Given to Saddam Hussein, because of contributions to several local Detroit Catholic Churches, in particular a $170,000 donation to a church that was in heavy debt."

--TorriTorriTalk to me! 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't it be true? Detroit has a relatively large population of Iraqi Catholic emigrés ("Chaldeans"), and in 1980 Saddam Hussein was in the good graces of the American government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.190.196.65 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keys awarded

[edit]

I noticed a lot of celebrities listed in the section as being awarded a key to some cities. Is there some reason why these awards were chosen to be listed? Cuz i think it should be mentioned that "Weird Al" Yankovic has been given the key to the city of Wausau, Wisconsin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Great Morgil (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

split the article?

[edit]

Whilst keys to the city clearly originates from the freedom of the city, there are clear distinctions between the two, as mentioned in the article. In addition, the contents page was disproportionately filled with lists of american cities which have awarded keys to the city to one or more individuals, whilst their respective sections take up a mere line. This in spite of relatively little explanation as to the purpose of keys to the city.

For now I am going to consolidate these individual awards into one section. To be honest I don't think all of the content is particularly notable, but that's POV so I'll let others decide what belongs and what doesn't, I'm just going to reformat it. However please can people give their thoughts on splitting before I go ahead with that. BeL1EveR 09:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have been toying with the idea of removing the "unworthy" that are listed. I know it technically is not my place to do so but this is a historical article and some cities have fallen to the level of awarding keys to minor celebrities or music bands. In what way is a music band or really minor TV Celeb qualified?

The keys are supposed to be awarded to noncitizens that contribute something tangible/valuable to the city in a big impact way. A band just visiting a city does not make it worthy from a historical perspective, the mayor probably just wanted to meet them. However if a minor celebrity does something such as raise money for a cause then I think they should be left on.

I am a history major so I will approach this from a good perspective. For right now lets leave the two together. --Eshalis 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely split. There's no reason not to, really: two seperate things, with two seperate names. That the latter originates from the former is just something that needs to be mentioned in both articles. I'll do it myself if I get to it before you do. Key to the city 08:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created Category:Freedom of the City; if the article is split I think Keys to the City should be in the same category, which could be renamed if considered necessary. jnestorius(talk) 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

A lot of peopel that have supposedly received keys to a city lack references Dbsheajr 04:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admission preference

[edit]

There's no preference for admission to City of London School for children of Freemen. There's nothing on the school's website to suggest it (and there was no suggestion of it when I was there).

thewikiman 21:00, 31 January 2007

Military Freedom of the City

[edit]

I don't feel there is any need to mention specific grants of Freedom of the City to military units; they are as common as dirt in the Commonwealth. Not that they aren't an honour for the regiment/ship/battalion/squadron etc. involved, but why list half a dozen when there are literally hundreds more (perhaps even thousands) that will not be mentioned? They should all be removed as non-notable as per WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOT or WP:NOTE.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.--88.227.205.14 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting list to separate article

[edit]

The list of people and military regiments that have been granted the Freedom of the City dominates the article, and without any clear inclusion criteria, could easily be several times longer than it is. This information would be more at home in a separate list article, or maybe two list articles (one for military freedom, and one for non-military). I'll perform the split myself if there are no objections. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll start by splitting off the military list.
I'm trying to work out a good way to deal with the non-military freedoms – my initial plan was to split off that list in its entirety, but I don't know if it would make sense to have Keys and Freedoms all mixed up in one article. An alternative would be two create two list articles, one for Freedoms and one for Keys, but sometimes it varies from city to city, and some cities award both, so there'd be an awful lot of cross-referencing between articles (and I have no idea where Calgary's White Hats would fit in). Anyway, I'll think on it some more. I'll just split off the military list for now. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you know what, I'll just lump Keys and Freedoms in together. As long as it's explained in the lead, it'll be fine. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's done. The new articles are List of Freedom of the City recipients and List of Freedom of the City recipients (military). DoctorKubla (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Freedom of the City. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of the City of London a requisite to be elected?

[edit]

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation#Court_of_Common_Council states that a prerequisite to stand for election for either Alderman or Councilor in London is to be a Freeman of the City of London. If true, and assuming this status is the same as possession of "Freedom of the City of London", this page should be revised to mention that; current the section on "Freedom of the City of London" makes is sound as if this status has no significant/substantive/consequential political import.

Bayle Shanks (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Honorary Freemen of the City of London which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_the_City&oldid=1207297572"