Talk:Censorship in Poland

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 27 May 2020. The result of the discussion was Convert to article.

A fact from Censorship in Poland appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that to bypass censorship in Poland, some authors turned to self-censorship, Aesopian language, and the Polish underground press?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of censorship in Poland.

Wikipedia

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Internet in Poland#Internet censorship and surveillance]] The anchor (#Internet censorship and surveillance) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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) 09:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that to bypass censorship in Poland some authors turned to self-censorship, Aesopian language,and the Polish underground press?Source: https://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/publication/83924/edition/64448
- ALT1:... that censorship in Poland was strongest during the periods Poland was not sovereign? Source: multiple, the sources agree the censorship was strongest during portions, WWII occupation and communist era

Reviewed: Mary Grace Borel
Comment: Hook 0 is perhaps most interesting, but probably due to linking to non-DYK content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 02:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Piotrus: This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts of ALT0 are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The position of ALT1 is less clear, - which sentence(s) support it? You could instead have a hook related to the practice of some publishers in delaying sending the first copy of a book to the Ministry until after it had gone on sale in bookshops. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: For ALT1, see sources in Censorship_in_Poland#Partitions and Censorship_in_Poland#World_War_II, as well as Censorship_in_Poland#People's_Republic_of_Poland. It is pretty obvious censorship was most intense during the occupation times (partitions/WWII), and then during the communist puppet state time, compared to the sovereign periods. The hook you propose sounds interesting too, but I struggle to create a hook that is short enough (200 chars?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking ALT1 because of not meeting the inline citation rule and approving ALT0. I couldn't think of short enough hook for the other fact either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

@GizzyCatBella and Nihil novi: I do appreciate copyediting and such, but I had to revert to my version pre-GCB's edits ([1]) because, well, just compare [2] and [3]. I think this is due to GCB editing, so this is directed primarily to GCB: please do not remove references unless they are clearly duplicating content. My version makes it clear which fact or facts come from which source. Please try to be careful. See also my essay on this at Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited. PS. Also the paragraphs should not be too small, see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I accidentally removed it? I was fixing just typos essentially and a little bit of composition. I didn't intend to stir around any of the references. GizzyCatBella🍁 09:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll work one line at the time then instead of the entire blocks, sorry Piotrus.GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: I recommend working in visual editor, it's pretty functional and should make it easy to see what's going on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's an idea, thanks. I left my good glasses at the pharmacy today that’s part of the problem too, VE will help seeing it better for sure.GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom of speech"

AFAIK there was no formal privilege for szlachta among the items of Golden Liberty which amounted to "freedom of speech". "Libera vox" means "free vote", i.e., the right to vote. If you disagree, please provide a direct reference to the corresponding privilege document, similar to, e.g., liberum veto. The sources Piotrus cited speak in general about szlachta enjoying freedom of speech, but do to not provide any sources about the origination or formalization for this freedom. Szalachta had no problems of speaking their mind long time before the era of Złota Wolność. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Libera vox non cadit sub iudicium" referred to the principle that in sejms and sejmiks no noble can be banned by law from the vote according to their opinion (poselski głos wolny). So far I failed to find the origination of this rule . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern commentators fall into a pit of literal translation. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not claiming that there was an official privilege for the "Freedom of speech" or linking to libera vox. We are just saying, per sources cited, that the concept that today we would describe as freedom of speech was an important one for the nobility.([4], [5], [6], , [7] ). And they discussed such concepts back then, see for example [8] or [9]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you were claiming that it was included in Golden Liberty. This is not supported. Removing again. Please do not restore contested text until evidence provided. I was speaking about libera vox because it is common confusion in translation. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Golden Liberty is just a concept, it's not like there is any definitive document that states what was and what wasn't in them. I think linking to this term is helpful to the reader, but we can talk about the best wording. Ping User:Nihil novi, since we are talking about a concept related to your username, at least partially :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I know what the dispute is about. Were there laws prohibiting or limiting free speech?

In an exceptional case, in 1689 Kazimierz Łyszczyński was tried and brutally executed for atheism on account of a note he had written in the margin of a book he was reading, and because he had written a manuscript titled De non-existentia Dei (On the Non-Existence of God). Under what law was he sentenced?

Nihil novi (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)?[reply]

The disputed phrase was The idea of freedom of speech was in general highly respected by the Polish elites and established in the Golden Freedoms of the Polish nobility. While "Golden Freedom" is "just a concept", the scholars generally have an understanding what GF was about: it was the overall collection of formal privileges for nobility granted over time. "Freedom of speech" in whatever meaning is not mentioned among these grants, therefore I say "established in the GF" is not.

Further, as Nihil novi's example says, you cannot apply "freedom of speech" anachronystically, you have to explain what it means in the contemporary context. But this is not the place to discuss this. As a minimum wikipedia has to avoid bland statements giving wrong impression. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See below for some 18th century text. And yes, there is a debate among the scholars to what degree "głos wolny" concept from the 18th century means the same as modern "freedom of speech"... things change. Human rights today are not the same as they were back then, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal and inviolate rights

This article's first section states: "[T]he Constitution of May 3, 1791, while [it] did not address [...] freedom of press or censorship directly, [...] guaranteed [...] freedom of speech in its Article 11 of the 'Cardinal and Inviolate Rights'." What is this "Cardinal and Inviolate Rights"? Article XI of the Constitution of 3 May 1791 is titled "The National Armed Force". Nihil novi (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The term and article comes from [10]. Cardinal rights are not primarily used in the context of May 3 Constitution but it is not an error. I investigated the the date 7 January 1791, this was still the period of the Great Sejm, before the Constitution was passed. I am not sure if we can it was part of the constitution or a supporting law passed by the Great Sejm. Some digging found: Nieco inne podejście do wolności słowa prezentowali ojcowie Konstytucji 3 maja, gwarantując w prawach kardynalnych z 7 stycznia 1791 r. „głos wolny każdemu obywatelowi”, ale „wszakże pod odpowiedzialnością w sądzie, gdyby kto pismem lub drukiem, directé do buntu skłaniał i gdyby kto krzywdził sławę bliźniego swego”. and (sorry for the terrible spacing, too tired to fix it) P raw nych gw arancji wolności słow a nie było jed n ak w Polsce aż do 1791 roku. W to k u obrad Sejm u C zteroletniego podjęto problem wolności druku. P rzyjęte 7 stycznia 1791 roku P ra w a k ard y n aln e niew zruszone gw aran to w ały w a rt. 14 wolność w ypow iedzi libertas sentiendi. K onstytucja 3 m aja pom ijała całkow itym m ilczeniem zagadnienie cenzury i wolnościd ru k u.. Further reading: A. Dziadzio, Polski model „rządów prawa” a europejska wizja „państwa prawa” w XIX wieku (w:) P. Kardas, T. Sroka, W. Wróbel (red.), Państwo prawa i prawo karne. Księga jubileuszowa profesora Andrzeja Zolla, t. I, Warszawa 2012, s. 137–146.; J. Sobczak, Dzieje prawa prasowego na ziemiach polskich, p. 58, Z. Radwański. Prawa kardynalne w Polsce, Poznań 1952. Primary source: [11] (but this is the 1793 edition so different and likely gutted by Russians and friends). Here is a better one but scan is bad, but this is the article 11 mentioned elsewhere: [12]/[13]. PS. I found a better copy, this needs to be copied to Wikisource (Polish diacrticis are murdered....): [14]. "Głos wolny na sejmikach kaŜdemu szlachcicowi i na sejmie sejmującemu, najuroczyściej zabezpiecza się, i pod Ŝadnym jakimkolwiek bądź pretekstem sądowi nie podpada; takŜe głos wolny kaŜdemu obywatelowi, nawet nie na zjazdach publicznych, tudzieŜ myśli lub zdania swego, czy to pismem, czy drukiem wydanie, a to z podpisem imienia swego, waruje się, bez potrzeby zezwolenia aprobacji, słowem bez Ŝadnej pod jakimkolwiek nazwiskiem formy; wszakŜe pod odpowiedzią w sądzie, gdyby, kto pismem lub drukiem, directe do buntu skłaniał, i gdyby, kto krzywdził sławę bliźniego swego. W materiach zaś religii i dziełach ku zepsuciu dąŜących, pod duchowną cenzurą, tudzieŜ aprobacją jurysdykcji duchownej wiary panującej." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you've rested, could you repeat the final sentence, apparently about censorship by the Roman Catholic Church?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihil novi: Not sure what you mean "Repeat". You can see the esentence in the linked sources, I don't think I made an error copypasting it. And yes, it is unclear. Blame the language for changing; maybe it was clear to someone versed in he 18th century Polish, or maybe even that it was a mess? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that it's from source #13. In the original, there are fewer odd signs. But the final sentence, concerning the role of the "Dominant Religion" (i.e., Roman Catholicism) still seems incomplete, missing a verb.

Regarding the meaning of the Polish term konstytucja in that period, I understand that it meant all the legislation that was passed during any given Sejm.

I don't know whether I've read enough texts of that period to be sure what, in all contexts, głos meant ("voice", "vote"?). Article VI of the May 3 Constitution speaks of senators and ministers not having a votum decisivum (Latin expression) in the Sejm in matters concerning their conduct of office. Article VII stipulates that the successor to the throne, on reaching age of majority, may be present at all sessions of the Guardians of the Laws, lecz bez głosu ("without a voice", "without a vote"?).

Censorship in Poland is a nice subject, and it would be good to get clarity on such points. How did you come to be interested in working up the subject?

Nihil novi (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only legislation of the Four-Year Sejm, adopted prior to 3 May 1791, that the May 3 Constitution stipulates (in its Article III) as being integral to that Constitution, is the law on "Our Free Royal Cities in the States [państwa] of the Commonwealth".

Article I of the May 3 Constitution, while "guarantee[ing] freedom to all rites and religions in the Polish lands", "forbid[s] under penalties of apostasy" "passage from the dominant religion", defined as "the sacred Roman Catholic faith with all its laws."

Nihil novi (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

still seems incomplete, missing a verb., well, this is so in the 1791 original: see page 3 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to confuse freedom of speech/press with censorship. For example the clause "bez potrzeby zezwolenia aprobacji" in Cardinal Laws regards the voice of a citizen, at the same time foreign publications still can be banned, which trsarina Catherine did about during the same times as she approved the Cardinal Laws: fearing the French Revolution Catherine issued a decree banning the sale of "harmful" books. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]