Talk:Profaning a monument

Is it universal?

Other countries? Zezen (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Poland is the only country where this is a crime. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, c. Fyi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_Penal_Code) and e.g. the laws in Thailand, or North Korea: their cult of images, subversion more precisely, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier seem to be related.

-> let us add them.

Zezen (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Unlike in these other laws, the law in Poland protects only the objects of physical statues located in public places, a fundamentally different law. (t · c) buidhe 07:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ta, buidhe.

From [2]: "In March 2016, for example, singer and comedian Padung “Jazz” Songsaeng was forced to make a public apology for allegedly insulting a monument of the Thai king's sailboat in a racy music video." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Rainbow flag on the statue of Maria Konopnicka in Kraków

• ... that in Poland, hanging a rainbow flag on a statue (pictured) may be a crime? Source: https://dorzeczy.pl/kraj/150333/poznanska-prokuratura-teczowa-flaga-nie-zniewaza-pomnikow.html (also see below)
  • ALT1:... that three LGBT activists who hung rainbow flags over statues in Warsaw (copycat pictured) were arrested for insulting monuments? Source: https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-08-19/polish-activists-fight-against-anti-lgbt-movement https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/08/07/world/europe/07reuters-poland-lgbt.html

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/A. T. Q. Stewart
• Comment: Wish I had a free image for this, sadly not. Image has been found.

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 07:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - There are open maintenance banners on the page now, unfortunately.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Either of the hooks is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. I found an image, can you approve it? Thanks! (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No problem. The image is also good. epicgenius (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. It may not be stable yet, and may need globalizaiton. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The author made the article on a global subject only cover Poland, then started deleting any efforts to globalize. The article was also created when this is a political controversy in Poland so this looks like a WP:RGW.T Magierowski (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is only about the law in Poland. Content about other jurisdictions was added without regard to sources which actually draw a connection between them in breach of WP:OR (implying that the laws cover the same offense, without any source saying so). I have removed original research from the article because it violates core content policy. (t · c) buidhe 16:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, but let's keep the discussion in one place (article's talk page). That said, the article is not stable right now and saw some major additions and reverts yesterday. This nomination should be put on hold for a few days at least until the article is stable and not tagged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There are open maintenance banners on the page now, unfortunately - specifically globalize & neutrality - so I have to reopen this nomination for now. Please do ping me when these issues have been resolved, though. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, They have. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: all right. The maintenance tags just have to be removed, and then this is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadly I have no control over other editors re-inserting maintenance tags that do not belong in the article after the original complaint has been resolved (creation of an overview at laws protecting monuments by country, so that you cannot complain that this article lacks a worldwide view). (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to this, I totally forgot. Looks good to go now that all issues have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, please

Those cases are cleary cherry-picking and its purpose is to push someone's agenda. Please, let's keep wikipedia neutral place for everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progre22 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Progre22: Can you explain in more detail what is non-neutral here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: In Section Scope of protection is something about pe*philes and in Section Cases there are mostly just current events.

Progre22 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Found UK and US cases

So universal. Inserted refs and text. Please restore balance and DUE. Zezen (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your additions, it is WP:OR because there is no indication that these offenses are called "insulting a monument". (t · c) buidhe 15:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Desecrate is a synonym.

E.g. Flag desecration: ... improperly flying it, verbally insulting it, dragging it on the ground,[2] or even eating it.[3]

Or meaning 2 here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desecrate

Please elaborate why not.

2. Reread Australia https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/nsw/offences/property/damaging-or-desecrating-protected-places/ . It is more than destroying. The title itself says "desecrating" and there is "defiling" further down.

3. Reread here, USA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/12/desecration-of-venerated-objects - a sample charge, similar to the Polish ones.

-> Revert yourself and edit please.

Zezen (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is profaning a monument, not "offending". See the sources I have provided. Moved the page itself based on them.

Now, please reconsider your revert and restore the balance, in view of therein and hereinabove.

Bows, Zezen (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You need some source which connects this particular crime to offenses in other countries. For example, in the US viewpoint- and content-based restrictions on free expression violate the First Amendment. So it could be illegal to trespass on private land or touch a statue but not specifically to "desecrate" it, as Volokh writes. Furthermore, it's not clear if "insulting", "profaning", and "desecrating" in different statues really equate to the same offense; that's why we use reliable sources rather than original research. (t · c) buidhe 17:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the article would be better if it discussed the concept in general, with a section for each country. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is I'm not convinced that there is a "concept in general". There are different laws in different countries, and we need some source which connects them and explains similarities and differences. We cannot conjure up such connections ourselves, that's called WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 16:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Images

The captions of the images should explain the relevance. Was anyone sued or such in relation to what is shown on the pictures? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Globalized in 4 steps

In view of the support above, I globalized it, restoring my previous edits, and using seperate steps to help the Wikipedians discuss the diffs.

A general note about WP:RS-es here. Given the controversy of this and related Central European cum LG+ topics, let us limit the reffed sources to high quality ones.

I have thus removed a blog: https://bezprawnik.pl/redakcja-serwisu/ which avows itself to being such:

Redakcję bloga stanowią praktykujący prawnicy... 

and to being a private commercial enterprise:

Bezprawnik.pl jest własnością spółki 🇵🇱Bezprawnik sp. z o. o., której wyłącznymi udziałowcami są: ekonomista Przemysław Pająk i prawnik Jakub Kralka.

I leave it to yous to decide if enterprises such as this one: https://notesfrompoland.com/notes-from-poland-foundation/

The Notes from Poland Foundation (Fundacja Notes from Poland) is a registered nonprofit foundation based in Poland. ... The foundation was established on 22 November 2018.

are legit herein.

See also WP:ECP imposed on some Poland-related topics - I feel a deja vu re a related affair, nomina sunt odiosa.

Zezen (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Restored, the author of the blog is an expert economist and therefore legit WP:SPS.

Notes from Poland is a legitimate media outlet, which for instance recently did an exclusive interview with the Polish ombudsman. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sample French law about the same concept profanation

Here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atteinte_%C3%A0_la_m%C3%A9moire_des_morts#Article_34_concernant_la_m%C3%A9moire_des_morts

En France, lorsque l'atteinte à la mémoire des morts prend sa source dans l'atteinte à l'intégrité du cadavre ou dans la profanation de monuments funéraires ou édifiés à la mémoire des morts, elle tombe sous le coup de l'article 225-17 du code pénal. Ces dispositions n'ont pas seulement pour but de sanctionner les atteintes portées aux tombes, mais aussi tout acte qui tend directement à violer le respect dû aux morts (Cour de cassation, dans un arrêt du 2 juin 1953).....

For the French challenged among us:

includes ... all acts ... which aim at directly infringe upon the memory of the dead ... 

also: d'y apposer des inscriptions, that is:

including attaching signs thereupon

So the spirit is the same as the Polish law, which proves it is not special. See also my original question in Talk if there are worldwide sanctions and laws against insulting/profaning/desecrating: they exist.

Do analyze such laws and cases, including this French example, and include if you feel it DUE to arrive at NPOV and GLOBAL, as per the challenges. (I feel it does, but I have little time to edit more.)

Zezen (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the French article, all of the punished incidents relate to actual damage done to the object. Again, we need some source that connects the French law and the Polish law, otherwise we cannot have a single article on both. It cannot be just that you think there is a connection. (t · c) buidhe 16:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Mass revert by Buidhe

1. You failed to reach consensus.

2. You did not engage above that profaning is the right term and thus the article is universal.

3. You engage in WP:OWN

Desist. Collaborate. Restore.

Zezen (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You need to obey core content policy, specifically WP:OR, which states that Wikipedia cannot draw a connection between two things if it is not made in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe did you consider renaming the article to - Profaning monuments in Poland? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, If there is another article about profaning monuments, it would be appropriate to add a disambiguator according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation. However no such article exists at present. (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Do such laws exist in Poland only? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The argument is that similar laws exist in other countries. However, Zezen has not found any sources stating that these laws cover the same offense. According to WP:OR, Wikipedia cannot draw a connection between two things if such a connection is not made in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

[3] ---> [4] (A statue of Jesus in front of the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Warsaw) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Blasphemy laws are something completely different, legally speaking. (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I got your position, but Zezen isn't entirely wrong, either. I'll get back to you on that one later. I have to think about it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, lets put it this way. Would an activist get in trouble in Israel for decorating the Western Wall in Jerusalem with a rainbow flag? (Israeli Penal Code47 Article 170 - Insult to religion and Article 173 Injury to religious sentiment) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Pure original research by Zezen.Volodya's song (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Zenzen's version, being more globalized, is superior and we should be working with it. I don't understand this focus on Poland. Poland is just one of many countries with similar laws and we should discuss all of them in one article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And Zenzen called you to comment here [5][6]. Zenzen's version is egregious OR. It ties a Whitehouse press release on physical vandalism of statues, which includes wholesale destruction, and ties it to the entirely unique legal concept of insulting or profaning monuments which does not involve physical damage.--Volodya's song (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And who called you here, old friend? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a blasphemy law, which is a different legal concept. Actually your comment is good evidence of why we have policies requiring reliable sources that draw connections between things. (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

These laws are connected in Poland, I’ll get back with more later - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay Buidhe, since my earlier question about the Israeli Penal Code47 laws remains unanswered, what about the British laws then? Such as the Desecration of War Memorials Bill [7] or this new British law [8] (10 years in prison) Do you find any connections here? Maybe once on it, check the Section 8 of the Offences Act of 1988 in Australia [9] Two weeks ago, this fellow turned Captain Cook Statue in Sydney’s Hyde Park into a toilet. [10] He wasn't too bright, was he? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I think we need a source which explicitly connects these laws, if they're to be combined into one article. If there was a legal article such as, "Penalties for insulting monuments around the world" that discussed laws in different countries, then it's clear we're dealing with the same offense and they can be combined in one article without WP:OR—drawing connections ourselves, which are not stated in any reliable source. However, as far as I can figure, no such article exists.

For example, the first British law you cite states, " “desecrates” means an act of disrespect including spitting, urination or defecation." We would need to look at a secondary source to back up the claim is that this is not just a vandalism law. The second British law was passed "to stiffen penalties for those who deface or vandalise memorials". Again, it seems that this is just a vandalism law. (t · c) buidhe 08:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(I think I added more to my comment while Buidhe was already answering it; thats why the answer doesn't address Australian laws-GizzyCatBella🍁 08:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC))

I don't think it's equivalent, urination is a form of vandalism.[11] Furthermore, I don't think we should be drawing connections between laws without reliable sources which draw such connections. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Buidhe, I can't read the full text of that reference you provided; there is nothing about urinations being considered vandalism in the available text. But anyway, I'll ask this, could one stand in front of Knesset Menorah or Itzhak Rabin Monument[12] all day long, keep climbing it, spitting and urinating at it? How would that be dealt with there? You still don't see the connection between these laws in different countries and need a source that white is white, Buidhe? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A quote from the article is "Vandalism often includes graffiti, as well as other types of damage to objects, such as disfigurement of sites (e.g., by urination, defecation, vomit..." So any law that is just used to punish crimes such as urination and graffiti cannot be considered in the same class as the Polish law, which is separate from the statue which criminalizes vandalism. (t · c) buidhe 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, but you are not responding fully. So, one can keep coming to the Itzhak Rabin monument every day, climb it and decorate it with a Palestinian or Rainbow flag, as long as they don't vomit at the memorial. That's allowed. Correct? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is off topic and speculative. We need to keep the discussion focused on reliable sources. If there is a similar law in Israel, please provide sources for it. (Other laws not specifically related to monuments may apply, public order laws and so forth) (t · c) buidhe 10:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not off-topic at all. Please follow below to my other inquiry. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Unique nature of Polish law

As stated above, Poland has other laws which criminalize vandalism (destruction of property). Quote from a source:

Czynności objęte omawianym przepisem mogą równocześnie ingerować w pomnik jako rzecz, prowadząc do jej zniszczenia, ale nie muszą pozostawiać trwałego efektu, gdy zakryjemy pomnik flagą, a także nie muszą w ogóle “dotykać” pomnika w sensie fizycznym, gdy w towarzystwie pomnika wykonamy jakiś ośmieszający czy obsceniczny gest. Ostatnia ze wskazanych form znieważenia pomnika dowodzi dobitnie, że istotą omawianego przestępstwa nie jest ingerencja w przedmiot z kamienia, lecz atak na abstrakcyjne wartości, które on przekazuje (pamięć o osobie, zdarzeniu, miejscu, oddanie szacunku i czci itp.). Penalizację zniszczenia cudzego mienia – w sensie uszczuplenia wartości ekonomicznej rzeczy – przewidują inne przepisy prawa karnego.[13]

The activities covered by the provision in question may simultaneously interfere with the monument as a thing, leading to its destruction, but they do not have to leave a lasting effect when we cover the monument with a flag, and they do not have to "touch" the monument in the physical sense, when we perform some ridicule in the company of the monument or an obscene gesture. The last of the indicated forms of insulting the monument clearly proves that the essence of the crime in question is not an interference with an object made of stone, but an attack on abstract values ​​that it transmits (remembering a person, event, place, paying respect and veneration, etc.). Criminalization of the destruction of someone else's property - in the sense of reducing the economic value of things - is provided for in other provisions of the criminal law.

So far no one has provided any reliable source for a comparable law existing in any other country, or sources which explicitly compare this law to laws protecting monuments in other countries. (t · c) buidhe 10:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Buidhe, because I see that you hold a firm stance about it despite several sources presented previously above. So how about this? I'll examine from the other end here. Can you provide references that Polish law is unique in nature and isn't connected to any other laws in any other country, and no related laws exist anywhere else? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the person who is trying to add content to an article—WP:ONUS. I would change my position if suitable sources were provided, but such sources, as I've repeatedly stated, such sources have to connect the law in Poland to laws in other countries, otherwise the connection is WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 11:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So Buidhe, you have no sources stating that this is a unique law, unconnected to any other widely used laws around the World, and this law is practiced in Poland only, correct? And you still insist on your stance that this law is unprecedented, right? Do I read you correctly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

See strawman argument. (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, how is a call to provide RS's for your statements is a strawman argument? Please be a little cautious here with such claims, okay? Thanks.- GizzyCatBella🍁 11:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that the law "isn't connected to any other laws in any other country, and no related laws exist anywhere else". I said that you have to cite sources for any alleged connections between laws and Poland and other countries.

It would be one thing to create an article under a descriptive title, such as "Laws protecting monuments", with a section for each country. But the edits proposed by Zezen[14] equate this law with other laws which appear to be aggravated vandalism rather than restrictions on free expression. Without citing any source which compares these laws and states that they are the same offense. So in my opinion, that is WP:OR. I guess I'm frustrated because I've stated that several times and it seems like others are not directly responding to my fundamental concern that editors are attempting to make a connection that is not made in any source cited. (t · c) buidhe 12:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Almost exact terms in each law and press RS. Also a Polish high quality legal science RS I had provided (which you removed) refer to this connection. (You need to set up a free account to read this one.) Am on mobile (see version tag if in doubt) so will not redig it, also because 3 below.

2. Ultimately, Roman Law is the origin: the ur-connection. See e.g. violation of sepulture as sacrilege here https://www.jstor.org/stable/44027907

3. I support GizzyCatBella. So 1 and 2 are immaterial by now: you wrote untruth in the beginning in Talk (i assume unwittingly as per good will), then reverted sourced content proving you wrong, then did not address the challenges.

You failed to reach consensus. See above for proof.

-> revert yourself etc.

Zezen (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus cannot override core content policy. Please quote sources on this page if you are alleging such connections to exist. (t · c) buidhe 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and you removed high quality sources for the title and synonyms, even when discussing the Polish law only:

Profaning a monument[1] (Polish: Znieważenie pomnika), also translated as insulting a monument,[2][3] 

You have thus vandalized it.

I claim: NOTTHERE in your case; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia that is.

Zezen (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, If you really think that, please report me at WP:ANI. (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am here to create WP:RS WP:DUE WP:5P content, not to right social wrongs via wp:DYKs or wp:ANI people. Life is too short.

Zezen (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

By chance I found a lucid exposition of the claimed discrepancy between the title and the current content:

In articles, this problem manifests itself in the way an article covers the topic. Sometimes articles fail to stick to the main article topic, discussing minor and tangential aspects of the topic, such as usages in popular culture, a list of examples, etc. This soon becomes the focus of the article. It is expected that articles are comprehensive, but they should also balance the information and give weight to areas of discussion in a neutral manner, focusing on presenting the description and application of the topic as the main bulk of the article.

Source: wp:shed, also cogent hereto.

Zezen (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A background article has now been created, so this one is just focusing on Poland's law. If you think the article should be moved, WP:RM is the correct venue. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. I will try to move my past edits thereto.

I tried to find its name in the History: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Profaning_a_monument&action=history but could not. Can you wikify to it in the the lead?

Zezen (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ping buidhe about the above... Zezen (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. There is no need to link a top level article in a more specific one when that article does not provide more information on the topic. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You wrote:

A background article has now been created, ...

Where is it, t?

Give us its name, please. Simples.

Pinging GizzyCatBella to help, as maybe my English is not up to scratch.

Bows

Zezen (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I see the answer below Laws protecting monuments by country. I plan to rename both then, to specify. Zezen (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You cannot rename an article yourself if there is no consensus for the move. (t · c) buidhe 04:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I can. I have done so with this very article, because of the balance of WP:RSes, being WP:BOLD and in view of no previous protests herein. So have you done yourself [15], without asking.

Nonetheless, I will not do so again, because it is more involved, less obvious, you have express concerns, etc.

I thus plan to:

0. Discuss it.

1. Rename this one to:

A. Profaning a monument in Poland. Reason: the current name wrongly suggests universality of the subject.

or:

B. Polish law on profaning a monument. I am less keen on it as it is a mouthful and too specific, as the current article rightly discusses also cases where this law has not been applied.

2. Rename also the other one to align with the existing ones, this one y compris. I will provide details on its Talk page.

-> Please comment both @buidhe and other gentle Wikipedians.

Bows, Zezen (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no article that has a conflicting name, requiring disambiguation. I.e. an article "Profaning monuments (some other country)". Until such an article exists there is no need for disambiguation. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation (t · c) buidhe 10:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How about creating a top level article?

Perhaps we can both have the cake and eat it: how about creating a top-level article about similar laws, which would just briefly summarize this, such as laws about profaning a monument and then remaining this article to Law about profaning a monument in Poland? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have no objection to creating an overview article about laws protecting monuments in different countries. But I think a better title would be "Laws protecting monuments", which would include affirmative laws obliging the maintainence of monuments. Such a scope would better include international law on the protection of cultural heritage as it relates to monuments:[16][17][18][19] (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been stubbed, Laws protecting monuments (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References