Template:Did you know nominations/Offending religious feelings
- 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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Unresolved issues raised by review
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Offending religious feelings (Poland)
- ... that, in Poland, offending religious feelings is punishable by two years in jail? Source: "Poland’s blasphemy law, Article 196 of the Penal Code, states that “anyone found guilty of offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place of worship is liable to a fine, restriction of liberty or a maximum two-year prison sentence.”" Freedom House
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC).
- Comment: Not reviewing the hook, but it seems a bit misleading. The hook creates the misleading impression that Polish law prohibits merely offending someone's religious feelings. In fact, the law prohibits calumny (i.e., the making of false and defamatory statements causing reputational harm) directed at religion. Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you read the article, you would discover that not all of the incidents involve false statements about religion; in fact, many involve things that are not defamation by any strech of the imagination but simply things believers find offensive (such as rainbow halo on Madonna). "Offending religious feelings" or "insulting religious feelings" is the term used in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is a separate law, Article 256, which forbids incitement to hatred based on religious belief. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The language of the statute, as quoted in the article, limits the crime to offense "through public calumny of an object or place of worship". Cbl62 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe ALT0b would help: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- ...
that, in Poland, extreme offending religious feelings is punishable by two years in jail?
Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, this is interesting and hooky, but I do kind of share some of the concerns of the previous drive-by commenter: in particular, does this article meet, or aspire to meet, DYK eligibility criterion 4a on neutral point of view? To start with, the translation of the law in question (the article's lede) is sourced from a site that is criticising this law, indeed from a document that concludes: "(blasphemy) prosecutions under Article 196 of the Penal Code represent undue restrictions on freedom of expression". The wiki Polish Penal Code article linked has an external link to this translation: "Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by outraging in public an object of religious worship or a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years." [1] "Outraging" is also the translation used by the UN here; (znieważając seems to be the Polish word in question.) If you look at the definition of "calumny" in wiktionary, Wikt:calumny, this is defined as (noun) (1) "A false accusation or charge brought to tarnish another's reputation or standing" (2) "Falsifications or misrepresentations intended to disparage or discredit another"; (verb) "To make false accusations or levy false charges against a person with the intent to tarnish that person's reputation or standing; to calumniate". As might be expected the attack article you use as your source is spinning the law before it even starts. Such articles may not be the best sources of statute law, you must know that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, the translation used (1) elides the "victims" of the "crime", by vague reference to "religious feelings" rather than offence to "other persons"; (2) introduces a structural ambiguity through calumny of "an object" rather than "an object of religious worship", and (3) reduces "a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites", emphasising the public/communal spirit of such, and thus the lack of concern for the public/communal good of contravenors of such, to "place of worship" (?also now private, despite "publicznego"?); (?4?) both with "an object" and "place of worship", this "translation" could be seen as purposely geared to lead readers to thoughts of overreach, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I had a quick look, but couldn't immediately find anything - in the UK, while the church is in general a legitimate target for attack (from the left), (some) other religions of the book are not; it would be interesting to know whether this law has been used in relation to/to protect "minorities"/other beliefs in Poland (do you think the article should have "(Poland)" in the title)? This may be one way in which this article becomes a little more NPOV. Are there any others? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Finally, from me before I hear from you.., would it be possible to expand in the image caption upon why this might be regarded as "offensive" - indeed, why on earth the "LGBT" movement, or an artist so affiliated, chose to put some colourful stripes in the halo of an early mediaeval icon of all places to put them, why on earth would they chose that rather than say a box of shreddies that may be more readily to hand? (The article linked in the caption does not explain.) Where is the frisson? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I had a quick look, but couldn't immediately find anything - in the UK, while the church is in general a legitimate target for attack (from the left), (some) other religions of the book are not; it would be interesting to know whether this law has been used in relation to/to protect "minorities"/other beliefs in Poland (do you think the article should have "(Poland)" in the title)? This may be one way in which this article becomes a little more NPOV. Are there any others? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, the translation used (1) elides the "victims" of the "crime", by vague reference to "religious feelings" rather than offence to "other persons"; (2) introduces a structural ambiguity through calumny of "an object" rather than "an object of religious worship", and (3) reduces "a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites", emphasising the public/communal spirit of such, and thus the lack of concern for the public/communal good of contravenors of such, to "place of worship" (?also now private, despite "publicznego"?); (?4?) both with "an object" and "place of worship", this "translation" could be seen as purposely geared to lead readers to thoughts of overreach, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, this is interesting and hooky, but I do kind of share some of the concerns of the previous drive-by commenter: in particular, does this article meet, or aspire to meet, DYK eligibility criterion 4a on neutral point of view? To start with, the translation of the law in question (the article's lede) is sourced from a site that is criticising this law, indeed from a document that concludes: "(blasphemy) prosecutions under Article 196 of the Penal Code represent undue restrictions on freedom of expression". The wiki Polish Penal Code article linked has an external link to this translation: "Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by outraging in public an object of religious worship or a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years." [1] "Outraging" is also the translation used by the UN here; (znieważając seems to be the Polish word in question.) If you look at the definition of "calumny" in wiktionary, Wikt:calumny, this is defined as (noun) (1) "A false accusation or charge brought to tarnish another's reputation or standing" (2) "Falsifications or misrepresentations intended to disparage or discredit another"; (verb) "To make false accusations or levy false charges against a person with the intent to tarnish that person's reputation or standing; to calumniate". As might be expected the attack article you use as your source is spinning the law before it even starts. Such articles may not be the best sources of statute law, you must know that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're mistaken, rule 4a states "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy." There is no requirement for hooks to do the same. Please see WP:BIASED when it comes to biased sources. News articles in English use similar translations with "offend",[2][3][4] The Cambridge book cited translates as follows:
And as I say above, "calumny" in English is misleading, because per that quote it does not require a false statement, just any action or statement that offends believers. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Th e provisions of Article 196 of the PPC are directed at anyone who ‘ o ff ends the religious feelings of other persons ’ , that is, who acts in a manner that is perceived as demeaning or off ensive to the object of religious worship or a place dedicated to the public celebration of religious rites. A particular type of behaviour is to be viewed as demeaning or off ensive based on objective criteria, following the moral standards of a particular religious community.
- Hi, where am I mistaken? Do I not question the NPOVness of the article, not of the hook? Re WP:Biased, to which you refer me, are you saying that such may be good sources for supporting information? I'm not denying that, I'm saying for statute law. For the law itself, it may not be. Would you be prepared, or be happy for me, to switch the translation and the reference to such in the lede to that per and eg the UN link provided above? Also, are you happy for me to put an X against this article on lack of article NPOV grounds? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- If the Freedom House translation is inaccurate or that the ones you cite are better, I would be happy to replace it, but you've not presented any evidence that it's the case. The bias of a source is not necessarily related to accuracy and there is no issue with citing a biased source in the lead of an article. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Have you yourself not just said that the translation you have used, that forms the lede, and is cited above, is "misleading"?... (In terms of (wiki)-pedagodical value here, should we not be trying to encourage good or at least neutral sourcing for such as laws; what is the best source for English translation of Polish law? It's a new field for me and you seem to be better placed language-wise, where should we be sourcing translations of Polish law?) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I switched to the translation provided by European Court of Human Rights, which is probably more authoritative. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Great - though you're probably right to question that... in fact this avoids "outrage" so is probably at least as good as the others, and as that is the court the article says is hearing some of these cases, hopefully they've pored over the semantics of the legislation in question. Are you able to address the points about the image caption and maybe some balance in non-criticism/relation to other beliefs? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- For the purpose of the law, it does not matter why believers find it offensive, just that they do; further context is provided at the article linked in the caption. The caption already meets WP:CAPTION and adding more info is likely to impede the second criteria, being succinct.
- WP:NPOV requires the balance of reliable sources, not the balance of opinions. The article already states that the law has not been found to contravene the Polish constitution or the European Convention of Human Rights. However, most reliable sources, either inside or outside of Poland, are critical of the law. The article should reflect that. The highest quality source I was able to find, the Cambridge one, states at the end: "Consequently, the necessary prerequisites of predictability and proportionality needed for any restriction of a fundamental human right [i.e. freedom of speech] to be legitimate are not met by the Polish criminal blasphemy clause." (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Great - though you're probably right to question that... in fact this avoids "outrage" so is probably at least as good as the others, and as that is the court the article says is hearing some of these cases, hopefully they've pored over the semantics of the legislation in question. Are you able to address the points about the image caption and maybe some balance in non-criticism/relation to other beliefs? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I switched to the translation provided by European Court of Human Rights, which is probably more authoritative. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Have you yourself not just said that the translation you have used, that forms the lede, and is cited above, is "misleading"?... (In terms of (wiki)-pedagodical value here, should we not be trying to encourage good or at least neutral sourcing for such as laws; what is the best source for English translation of Polish law? It's a new field for me and you seem to be better placed language-wise, where should we be sourcing translations of Polish law?) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- If the Freedom House translation is inaccurate or that the ones you cite are better, I would be happy to replace it, but you've not presented any evidence that it's the case. The bias of a source is not necessarily related to accuracy and there is no issue with citing a biased source in the lead of an article. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, where am I mistaken? Do I not question the NPOVness of the article, not of the hook? Re WP:Biased, to which you refer me, are you saying that such may be good sources for supporting information? I'm not denying that, I'm saying for statute law. For the law itself, it may not be. Would you be prepared, or be happy for me, to switch the translation and the reference to such in the lede to that per and eg the UN link provided above? Also, are you happy for me to put an X against this article on lack of article NPOV grounds? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- n - Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
someone is trying to have this article merged/deleted; like the nominator, I strongly oppose this, but presumably we need to wait for this to conclude before promoting; I have amended the article semi-considerably to try to address previously significant NPOV concerns; assuming there is no reverting of my edit, this is/should be otherwise good to go, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- revert of reliably sourced additional material to reinforce the POV-pushing, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
: Changing no to a maybe as the nominator has attempted to address (some of) the points raised, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- What is POV-pushing? Please be specific. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry I have no more time to spend on this since this is simply time wasted; of course someone else can override, but WP:DUCK or what; look at the exchange above for how difficult it is - "you are mistaken", erroneous citation of policy, so reluctant to move from sourcing/translation of legislation you yourself stated was misleading but helped shape the law one way (followed by a constitutionality section, a largely fail section, and a criticisms section); also, and on a somewhat different if semi-related note (and thanks for the WP:INVOLVED flag) do you really think there was nothing that could be rescued from the edit you reverted? Was the see also - hate speech, which references article 196 - so objectionable that another user's contribution had to be rejected? Does the image caption now better explain for those not already in the know what is going on? Why removal of contextual information on Catholicism in Poland that helps users not already in the know understand the background; there are articles on Ordo Iuris in Polish, French etc, wikis, may be an RS, but if you are so sure it is not - the article in question seemed pretty serious and sensible and at least as reliable as some of the other sources cited, if you wished to show a modicum of respect for another user's efforts, since this source was used to provide historical context in terms of prior similar legislation for Article 196 - presumably of relevance to this article - with your familiarity with the sources, you could have found alternative sources, or piped the legislation for much of it - or did you not like the conclusion from this mini-survey that "the provision has moved from penalizing blasphemy to protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs", etc; as I say, someone else can overrule, but I'm not the first on this page to express their concerns, and they extend beyond hook content, to article content, and editing style; sorry to be so stentorian; (see also the article/dyk nom for profaning a monument), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- For "most revered Catholic icon", even if it's true, you would need to cite a more authoritative source than The Independent. Also, your expansions brought the caption to 8 lines, violating the requirement to be succinct.
- This was a quote. Abbreviated to the point of incomprehension unless you already know, policy sounds good though, and it helps the slant, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me what the population of Catholics in Poland has to do with the law; the source doesn't mention any connection. According to WP:OR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
- Catholics, and Conservative Catholics to boot, sound like some kind of fringe group. Apparently lots of Catholics in Poland, which the link, the source, and the text helped communicate, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ordo Iuris is mostly known for right-wing culture warrioring[5][6] It is influential among certain circles in Poland but I cannot see any indication it is a reliable source. If you think it's reliable, WP:RSN would be the right place for the discussion.
- I have done as suggested here, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I said this is not being used for their editorial but as a convenient summary of the preceding related legal provisions. If you wished, you could have found alternatives, if their quotes of the historic/legacy legislation are no good. It's the same point I was making before but I don't know where to turn. I provided pdf links for better translations. You could show similar willing. Presumably the content is relevant at least, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hate speech article is already linked in the article so it should not be linked in see also (MOS:SEEALSO). (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Is it? That hate speech in Poland article? Where? Ah, did a search in the edit screen; lurking behind "Article 256". Could probably risk a see also with hate speech in Poland in its own right? Quack Quack Quack even more, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I added what the Cambridge source says about the Catholic aspect and about the history of the law. WP:DYKRULES requires that the article only cite reliable sources. Nor is the article expected to cover all aspects comprehensively; this is not GA review. As for
Catholics, and Conservative Catholics to boot, sound like some kind of fringe group
, I really have no idea where you got that idea. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- You have now, at least in part, addressed this point by adding contextual information to Catholicism being widespread in Poland, if not by also reinstating the link to the related article; I am not saying this needs to be GA quality; at the same time, that it does not need to be does not necessarily mean it should be (kept) as non-GA as possible; where are we with the renaming of the article to "(Poland)" or similar? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I added what the Cambridge source says about the Catholic aspect and about the history of the law. WP:DYKRULES requires that the article only cite reliable sources. Nor is the article expected to cover all aspects comprehensively; this is not GA review. As for
- Is it? That hate speech in Poland article? Where? Ah, did a search in the edit screen; lurking behind "Article 256". Could probably risk a see also with hate speech in Poland in its own right? Quack Quack Quack even more, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry I have no more time to spend on this since this is simply time wasted; of course someone else can override, but WP:DUCK or what; look at the exchange above for how difficult it is - "you are mistaken", erroneous citation of policy, so reluctant to move from sourcing/translation of legislation you yourself stated was misleading but helped shape the law one way (followed by a constitutionality section, a largely fail section, and a criticisms section); also, and on a somewhat different if semi-related note (and thanks for the WP:INVOLVED flag) do you really think there was nothing that could be rescued from the edit you reverted? Was the see also - hate speech, which references article 196 - so objectionable that another user's contribution had to be rejected? Does the image caption now better explain for those not already in the know what is going on? Why removal of contextual information on Catholicism in Poland that helps users not already in the know understand the background; there are articles on Ordo Iuris in Polish, French etc, wikis, may be an RS, but if you are so sure it is not - the article in question seemed pretty serious and sensible and at least as reliable as some of the other sources cited, if you wished to show a modicum of respect for another user's efforts, since this source was used to provide historical context in terms of prior similar legislation for Article 196 - presumably of relevance to this article - with your familiarity with the sources, you could have found alternative sources, or piped the legislation for much of it - or did you not like the conclusion from this mini-survey that "the provision has moved from penalizing blasphemy to protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs", etc; as I say, someone else can overrule, but I'm not the first on this page to express their concerns, and they extend beyond hook content, to article content, and editing style; sorry to be so stentorian; (see also the article/dyk nom for profaning a monument), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you make significant changes, you cannot review the article, because you've become WP:INVOLVED. Also, these changes were made without regard to WP:RS and in my opinion did not improve NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do wonder if the article title needs disambiguation; many countries have similar laws, after all. When I clicked the link, I fully expected an article about the concept generally, not a legality specific to one country. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, thanks for your comment. Now moved to Offending religious feelings (Poland). (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do wonder if the article title needs disambiguation; many countries have similar laws, after all. When I clicked the link, I fully expected an article about the concept generally, not a legality specific to one country. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've updated this template page to reflect the article move; the nomination page itself should not be moved. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Any updates to this? There hasn't been any progress in this page in several weeks now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - ?
- Neutral: - ?
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - ?
- Interesting: - ?
- Other problems: - ?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Oh dear. This is one of those nom templates where a lot of people come in and spend so much time arguing the toss that the nom doesn't get anywhere, and the resultant confusion holds up progress. As I understand it, there are three basic issues: (1) ALT0 (the only ALT as I write this) is misleading. According to the source, offending religious feelings in Poland is not punishable by jail. It is potentially punishable in three ways - a fine; restriction of liberty (whatever that may involve?); a prison sentence. (2) One or more editors have shown (at some length) a strong doubt about the neutrality of the article; (3) Some editors have voiced strong doubt about either quality of sources or interpretation of sources. It is my own view that ALT0 is misleading, but that problem could be solved with an alternative ALT. The real problem here is the strong controversy about neutrality and sources. I do believe that the article is lacking in a clear section dedicated to recorded rebuttals of complaints about the law. That would probably balance up (at least superficially) the most obvious neutrality issues. I don't believe, however, that we are ever going to resolve the argument about interpretation of the sources, and I think that that is going to kill this nom. If the above editors have responded so strongly in this way, then so may readers of the main page. That puts the article at risk of damage, and all that sort of thing does not benefit Wikipedia or the stability of useful information carried within this article. So I am with a heavy heart requesting the closure of this nomination. Buidhe, if you don't agree with this, fair enough. But please consider the stability of the article. If we close this nom, and if you can then be left in peace to take your time over gradually strengthening the sources and their clear interpretation, you may end up with something really strong and good. Storye book (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Storye book:
- The article is stable. It has not been edited since 23 September 2020 — almost a month.[7]
- It is worth noting that one of the editors objecting to the article, Zezen, was indeffed as a WP:NOTHERE editor. Also, the source that Maculosae tegmine lyncis was pushing to be included was discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard where three uninvolved users argued that the source was unreliable. One of them described Ordo Iuris as "an extremist organization not reliable for the time of day".
- The article does not have a criticism section. It does have a section on "Repeal attempts" which have not been successful to date. The sources don't provide the reasons why the repeal efforts didn't succeed (presumably there were not enough votes in favor). Nor was I able to find any one who responded to the opinions of Mieszkowski and Biedron in favor of the law. The section lists international human rights organizations which have opposed the law, but, I could not find any in favor.
- The hook is accurate. It states that the crime of offending religious feelings is punishable with a 2 year prison sentence. This is provided for in the law. I don't see an issue since "jail" is a synonym for prison but if necessary this could be changed to "punishable by two years imprisonment". (t · c) buidhe 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK Buidhe, I'll have another look at it, in the light of the information that you have given. This may take some time. Storye book (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Update. I have checked the dictionary meaning of "punishable" and it means that anyone who commits the particular crime IS punished in a particular way. I cannot find an instance of a dictionary saying that "punishable" by jail means the miscreant could be punished in various ways including that way. To put it another way, ALT0 means that anyone who offends religious feelings in Poland will be punished by imprisonment. The source does not support that fact; the source says that the miscreant may be punished by various methods including possible imprisonment. Could we perhaps have an adjusted ALT with something like "may be punishable by two years in jail"? The word, "jail" is not a problem. (I still have to check through all the rest of the sources in the article, regarding the other matter). Storye book (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that is correct. Several RS dictionaries define the term as "liable to punishment" or equivalent, not that it is necessarily used.[8][9][10][11] For an example, this source states that the entire UK had a permanent moratorium on capital punishment after 1973, but "However, several crimes, including treason, remained punishable by death in Great Britain until 1998."[12] (emph added) So it is punishable if the law provides for it, even if not used in practice. (t · c) buidhe 13:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I understand it, when the English word "liable" is used in a legal sense, that means "legally responsible", where as in non-legal, casual terms, "liable" means "likely", as in "this person is liable to be late for work" which means they are likely to be late for work, but that will not always be the case. I think that the problem here, is that a fair proportion of readers will understand the hook my way, and another fair proportion may understand it your way. That makes the hook ambiguous. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the statement about the laws of Poland, I think that we need to make sure that all readers will understand exactly what the law is on that matter. We don't need to make the hook longer - just clearer for all readers. Storye book (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- On re-reading all of the above discussion, and the article, I think that the best that we can do for the article's hopes for DYK and for fairness to the creator is to ask for a new review. I wish you all the best, Buidhe. Storye book (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Buidhe, Storye book, can this potential hook ambiguity be solved by replacing "is punishable" in the original hook with "can be punished"? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree to it too. Thank you, BlueMoonset and Buidhe. I am writing the following ALT having stepped down as a reviewer.
- ALT1: ... that, in Poland, offending religious feelings can be punished by two years in jail?
- I'm sorry that I cannot help further with the sources issue. Storye book (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- This nomination has been ongoing since August and is now the oldest active one. The nomination may be marked for closure if there will still no progress in reviewing or addressing the issues within the next week. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I continue to have doubts about the neutrality of this article and hook. If it is to run on our Main Page, it should track the statute as closely as possible. Perhaps something like this:
- alt2 ... that, in Poland, offending religious feelings by publicly insulting an object or place of religious worship may be punished as a crime? Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting conversation. I think Cbl62 is right to suggest hewing closely to the original, which sidesteps the issue of the nominator's neutrality. (I don't see any intemperate language in the article, and I don't see that anyone else has either.) Whether you're for the law or against it, it's an unambiguous piece of writing that doesn't need much exegesis. I'd think people in favor of Article 196 would find that the list of cases in the (wiki) article illustrates their point nicely. The snag is what part of hook Alt2 is the quoted part and what's outside the quote. As long as the quote isn't deceptively selective, and this isn't, the only part to be assessed would be what's outside the quote. To clear that up, mightn't we try the following, where outside the quote there is only "in Poland" (true and neutral per se) and "may be punished as a crime" which softens what might otherwise look draconian:
- alt3 ... that, in Poland, "offending the religious feelings of other persons by publicly insulting an object of religious worship” may be punished as a crime? Nigetastic (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be more interesting to focus on an individual case: (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- ALT4 ... that Polish signer Adam Darski was prosecuted, but acquitted, for the crime of offending religious feelings after tearing up a Bible during a performance and calling it "the book of lies"?
- You're right. That is more interesting. And I'd still back you up and say it's neutral and factual. It's factually neutral. The ambiguity in the wiki guidelines that this brings into focus for me is that there's factual neutrality and then there's emotional neutrality. They aren't the same, but they get comingled. I won't imply anything about your intentions, but this language is factual but a little provocative. I'm an (aging, gay) First Amendment guy and reflexively think people should say what they want. Period. As a procedural question, on the other hand, in a forum where you've got to bring people along with you, I'd guess some people might put themselves in opposition to this phrasing because, consciously or unconsciously, they have an emotional response against it. Could you stomach a compromise that's a little brisker and trims some of the color:
- ALT5 ... that for tearing up a Bible during a public performance, Polish singer Adam Darski was tried and acquitted of offending religious feelings? Nigetastic (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to throw a further wrench in the works. I checked the Darski article (out of concern for adhering to WP:BLPCRIME) and if the account represents sources accurately, it appears more complicated—after the Supreme Court decision mentioned in the nominated entry, the case was remanded to a lower court which found him guilty again but dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds, rather than acquittal. So while choosing a different hook seems like a good way to resolve this nom, I’m not sure Darski is the best choice for a tidy example. I’ll try to think of another suggestion (the original is ok with me but obviously that’s not consensus.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps strike out "and acquitted" so it says he was tried? (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hrm, this does seem complicated. For BLPCRIME (which expressly applies everywhere on WP, not just in biographies), IMO we would really need to say how the case resolved but I can’t find the statute of limitations claim in any of the sources. However what I did learn was that he didn’t just tear up a Bible, he also called the Catholic Church “the most murderous cult on the planet”, among other remarks, so as other commenters have noted, that starts to be closer to testing commonplace libel laws (not in the US but certainly in a number of European countries.) So I too am feeling uneasy—we want something hooky but not misrepresentative, and this seems a complex case to explain. Sorry, wish I felt differently. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps strike out "and acquitted" so it says he was tried? (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to throw a further wrench in the works. I checked the Darski article (out of concern for adhering to WP:BLPCRIME) and if the account represents sources accurately, it appears more complicated—after the Supreme Court decision mentioned in the nominated entry, the case was remanded to a lower court which found him guilty again but dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds, rather than acquittal. So while choosing a different hook seems like a good way to resolve this nom, I’m not sure Darski is the best choice for a tidy example. I’ll try to think of another suggestion (the original is ok with me but obviously that’s not consensus.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Either way, the article's discussion of Darski needs to be fixed. Before posting to the MainPage, the Darski discussion should be either (1) removed or (2) edited to make the corrections recommended by Innisfree987, i.e, noting that the case was ultimately dismissed on statute of limitations grounds (rather than an acquittal on the merits) and inclusion for fuller context of Darski's calling the Catholic Church "the most murderous cult on the planet". Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are mistaken. In a summary article such as this one, it is not expected to give all details on how the case was resolved (the Cambridge University Press book refers to "acquittal" without further details). The "murderous cult" comment is irrelevant to the law because the Catholic Church is not "an object or place of worship". Unless the source specifically states that Darski was prosecuted for this comment, I doubt you can break this law by calling any religion a "murderous cult". (t · c) buidhe 00:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Cbl62 about Darski and would advocate removal unless there’s a Polish speaker who can considerably improve on the extant sources. Buidhe, I would encourage you to read Darski’s entry which describes a far more complex, protracted case than is accounted for here, hence my concern about significant elements being left out. At the same time, it largely relies on blog posts, which don’t help us improve this entry (and needs improvement in that one too). And I can’t find any that actually say the statute of limitations bit—I’m guessing a fan following the whole thing added it without a source, because it’s a strange claim to make if untrue, but Cbl62 is really right to point out it can’t go on Main Page on the “seems true” basis. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are mistaken. In a summary article such as this one, it is not expected to give all details on how the case was resolved (the Cambridge University Press book refers to "acquittal" without further details). The "murderous cult" comment is irrelevant to the law because the Catholic Church is not "an object or place of worship". Unless the source specifically states that Darski was prosecuted for this comment, I doubt you can break this law by calling any religion a "murderous cult". (t · c) buidhe 00:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Either way, the article's discussion of Darski needs to be fixed. Before posting to the MainPage, the Darski discussion should be either (1) removed or (2) edited to make the corrections recommended by Innisfree987, i.e, noting that the case was ultimately dismissed on statute of limitations grounds (rather than an acquittal on the merits) and inclusion for fuller context of Darski's calling the Catholic Church "the most murderous cult on the planet". Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Given that this nomination has been up since August and there has still been no consensus on a proper hook or even if the article is suitable for DYK, the nomination will be marked for closure as stale if no hook is approved and/or the article issues are not addressed by the end of the month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The nomination has now run for several months without a hook being approved or the article issues being addressed, in spite of multiple messages and pings. Buidhe did not respond to talk page messages as well as the above final notice. As such, given the lack of meaningful progress, this nomination is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)