Talk:Liberty (advocacy group)

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


Untitled

I suggest changing the name from "pressure group" to "interest group" as interest has a more neutral connotation than pressure. Jehan60188 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.22.46 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.131.182 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker (and editor) of American English, the term "pressure group" sounds jarring and pejorative to me. I've never seen a group call itself a pressure group, and it's usually used to describe a group the speaker doesn't agree with, like AIPAC or the National Rifle Association. I regularly read several British (or UK if that's correct) science and medical journals, and I've never seen them use the term "pressure group" favorably. (Although next time I log into The Lancet I'll do a text search). --Nbauman (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "pressure group" has become a pejorative term. In correcting a renaming[1] that breached
Special Interest Group" is often used for subgroups concerning specialities within a body such as the IEEE with no hint of advocacy). NebY (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
In Britain "pressure group" does not carry a pejorative meaning and was in fact an accurate description of Liberty. "Advocacy group" is never used in the UK.--
talk) 11:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
First, sorry for responding so late. I was rather hoping others would join the conversation. Anyway... On the one hand, I disagree about "pressure group". It's a term that journalists and politicians use about groups they wish to oppose, dismiss or deprecate and one that groups don't often use about themselves. On the other hand, I have been searching for UK examples of "advocacy group" and though I did find some, they're still rarer than I thought. So I looked at what Liberty themselves use and found two terms on their main page: "campaigning organisation" and membership organisation". The latter isn't very helpful for our purposes, any more than say describing it as a limited company, without the longer and somewhat promotional "membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK". But "campaigning organisation" is to the point and seems fairly neutral. Should we switch to that? NebY (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in England and Wales, not the UK

I propose to add "in England and Wales" to the end of this sentence:

the group campaigns to protect civil liberties and promote human rights

As is stated on their own website: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.241.113 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.I.E. information and associated material

User:Walkwounded has repeatedly deleted information about the NCCL's links to the Paedophile Information Exchange and NCCL's opposition to child pornography and incest laws. The only mistake I can see in the text was the lack of sourcing for the fact that Dromey was a prominent member. I then fixed this minor oversight by adding a further source yet the material still keeps being removed (including the new source showing Dromey's membership). The Daily Telegraph is considered to be a very reliable source so I cannot see any problem here. I also note that all Walkwounded's only contributions to Wikipedia so far have been to this article and to the Shami Chakrabati article (the director of Liberty).--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid i don't think that you have accurately reflected important parts of the Telegraph report and have chosen to only select certain facts which i think makes the article biased - as per your suggestion i have amended to show a more balanced reflection. As for my contributions - it's flattering that you're paying me such attention but i can be interested in what i am interested in, can't i? I'm not sure what you're implying but i know a bit about the subjects because of my studies, hence my interest. Walkwounded —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A few of your ideas are useful such as the more precise terminology concerning affiliation although you've added some rather unnecessary and very vague material of no use also (e.g the statmenet about "other groups"). At the same time as adding this material you've also removed two toehr controversies, those pertaining to incest legalisation and that of proving harm of children in child pornography cases. Anyway, I'll incorportate your more useful ideas into the text. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently a controversial topic which is getting media attention Extua (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that someone believes that Paedophilia is not notable or important having moved the 'Paedohphilia' section into a sub header, here. I recommend we move the section back out into main body of the article, regards. Twobellst@lk 11:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Copypasta and Copyvio templates at the top of the article

In favor - Considering we've reduced our reliance on the material cited in the header ([2]) drastically by bringing in other sources. I'm in favor of removing the header entirely. Discuss. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 08:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous NCCL Organisation

There was an unconnected, older organisation, also called the National Council for Civil Liberties, set up during WW1, whose aim was to provide help to Conscientious Objectors: (see http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/hullhistory-liberty.html) How would one go about setting up a page for that organisation, seeing as both that full title and the NCCL acronym currently redirect to this article? Ymprwiki (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the reference to the earlier organisation is vague on the above webpage, source material may prove to be too elusive for a full article. Probably best you incorporate whatever you can find into an article on conscientious objectors as specific to the Great War as you can find before you start thinking about a putative article. Obviously if it goes well, and there is too much material for the more general article, then you can think about a new article. Then you can think about a disambiguation note at the top of this article and checking the pages linked here for any which are really about the earlier organisation. Probably few if any though. The last task is best down using Google entering a construction (site:en.wikipedia.org) as it is possible to determine precisely what is being referred too. Philip Cross (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philip and thanks for the response. The link I posted above was just to show that the current Liberty/NCCL were aware of the earlier namesake. I've got more information than is mentioned in the link, e.g. a more extensive 'board' listing and the objects of the Council — https://archive.org/stream/russianrevolutio00farbrich#page/n55/mode/2up — amongst other things. I think I'll try creating a new article to see how it looks. (That'll give me a chance to learn more about WP anyway.) Then we'll see if it's worth keeping standalone. Does that sound reasonable? :) Ymprwiki (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty (advocacy group). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Liberty

This article says she left Liberty in 2015, but the article on Liberty confirms that she left in 2016.86.164.173.86 (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Liberty (advocacy group). 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty (advocacy group). 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liberty has a new logo as displayed on their website and social media. https://twitter.com/libertyhq I don't have authorisations to change pictures so just flagging. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBarton91 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"More than minor" disturbance protests challenged

The interim director of Liberty, Akiko Hart recently wrote in The Guardian on the The Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. I am simply logging that commentary here in case another editor wants to pick up that material: Hart (2023).[1] Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hart, Akiko (24 June 2023). "See you in court, Suella Braverman — your anti-protest law is an insult to democracy". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom.
    ISSN 0261-3077
    . Retrieved 2023-06-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberty_(advocacy_group)&oldid=1208170740"