Talk:Laws protecting monuments by country
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Rename plans edit
See the discussion here: Talk:Profaning_a_monument for the context.
Let us change this article's name from Laws protecting monuments by country to:
1. Desecrating monuments. Reasons:
A. The word is seemingly more popular.
B. There are US laws that use that phrase, quoted by me in its edit history, q.v.
C. Aligning the name with e.g. Flag desecration
2. Profaning monuments. Reasons:
A. The original article Profaning_a_monument needs to be renamed for the reasons specified therein.
B. Aligning the names of this parent article with the children ones, including 2A.
C. It is a mouthful.
D. It should cover more than the laws: also cases of their selective application, see the Bulgaria case (which has its separate article), Lithuania, USA, etc.
-> Please comment both @buidhe and other gentle Wikipedians.
Bows, Zezen (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Except that does not cover all of the type of laws which protect monuments. Some laws do not introduce any sanction against offenders, but instead actively protect monuments by such means as scheduled monuments and other legal means of obliging the authorities to maintain them.
- I do not know why this article's title should match any other article in particular. The flag desecration article is about the act of flag desecration (including coverage of the United States, where desecration is protected free speech), this article is about laws. (t · c) buidhe 10:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- The scope of the article is rather unclear to me, since it could refer to (a) laws against desecration/vandalism or (b) laws for historical conservation. These two concepts seem rather unrelated. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that there is a division between civil and criminal laws regarding monuments. However, I oppose using WP:OR to imply that such laws are part of one offense/crime. (For example, there are many articles comparing the definition of concepts such as incitement to genocide or murder in different legal systems, but as far as I can tell no such sources exist regarding vandalism of monuments or restrictions on freedom of expression related to monuments.) (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure that is relevant to my query. Taking the US for example, what I'm saying is that "laws protecting monuments" could refer to (a) those against desecrating monuments (or vandalism or freedom of expression or whatever wording is used), such as the executive order currently mentioned in the article, and (b) laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which enacts historical preservation through the National Register of Historic Places. The scopes of (a) and (b) are vastly different, and since the NRHP hasn't been mentioned here, it seemed that (b) wasn't the intended scope of the article. But then there's the link to Scheduled monument in the UK section, so I'm confused. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- An executive order in the United States is not technically a "law", so I've removed it.
- The controversy here is, as Zezen states above, related to that which developed on Talk:Profaning_a_monument. In that article Zezen attempted to insert language which suggested that there was such an offense/crime as "profaning a monument" that existed in multiple countries, without citing any source that connected such laws together and stated that they were related to each other.
- I created this article with a descriptive title and not implying any connection between laws in different countries. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure that is relevant to my query. Taking the US for example, what I'm saying is that "laws protecting monuments" could refer to (a) those against desecrating monuments (or vandalism or freedom of expression or whatever wording is used), such as the executive order currently mentioned in the article, and (b) laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which enacts historical preservation through the National Register of Historic Places. The scopes of (a) and (b) are vastly different, and since the NRHP hasn't been mentioned here, it seemed that (b) wasn't the intended scope of the article. But then there's the link to Scheduled monument in the UK section, so I'm confused. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that there is a division between civil and criminal laws regarding monuments. However, I oppose using WP:OR to imply that such laws are part of one offense/crime. (For example, there are many articles comparing the definition of concepts such as incitement to genocide or murder in different legal systems, but as far as I can tell no such sources exist regarding vandalism of monuments or restrictions on freedom of expression related to monuments.) (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- The scope of the article is rather unclear to me, since it could refer to (a) laws against desecration/vandalism or (b) laws for historical conservation. These two concepts seem rather unrelated. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)