Talk:Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WSJ: Power to Name Polish State-Media Chiefs Passes Into Governing Party’s Hands

When State-Media were controlled by the former government noone cared, there existed only one critical talk-show, late at night.

2011 EU hypocrisy over Polish government attack on media, the hypocrisy continues here, only in a mirror image.Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Poland ... regards

As far as I know the president of the Court, not the court. Or do you mean the opinion about the project of the law? Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

In protest against the new media law four senior managers of the Polish Television TVP announced their resignation

It's not a constitutional crisis.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Tomazs Lis, mentioned in the quoted article (in reality Tomasz), has ethical issues (Hyena of the year). Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The menagers

• Katarzyna Janowska, TVP Kultura, replaced 4 years ago Krzysztof Koehler. When Janowska replaces is O.K., when Janowska is repalced it's a constitutional cris.Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Piotr Radziszewski
• Jerzy Kapuściński
• Tomasz Sygut [1], information broadcasts, propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

References

The references are biased. Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Here is the list of several Polish journalists who present their specific POV abroad. 95% of foreign journalists don't speak Polish, so they quote what they obtain from their friends and those who read Polish, quote Gazeta Wyborcza and Newsweek (Springer).Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Surprisingly many German refrences, no Polish one. It's POV.Xx236 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less true, but that is Wikipedia's sourcing policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Heading (added 1/5/16)

In my opinion "Polish constitutional crisis" refers only to a situation with the Constitutional Court. A good article on this topic requires showing it from the very beginning - it is Civic Platform's bill on Constitutional Court,passed on 25th June 2015. There's a quite good article about the topic on Polish Wikipedia,however it doesn't cover everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.133.28.6 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above IP. At the very least all the "media" stuff doesn't really belong here. There's nothing "constitutional" about it.Volunteer Marek 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of media is a fundamental constitutional right, its abolishment is certainly part of the current crisis. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you been interested in my fundamental constitutional right of media freedom during the last 10 years? I don't remeber. Millions of Polish people had to fight to obtain one digital terrestial channel for Telewizja Trwam. There is no media problem in general but of public Telewizja Polska and Polskie Radio, controlled by several parties, who attack the government.Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but the idea that freedom of media is being "abolished" (as opposed to just the current government staffing *public* media with who it likes, which is what every party has done since democracy came to Poland) is original research and very POV. Need a source for all of this, as well as for the idea that this is part of the "constitutional crisis".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Art. 190 (5)

Also, where in the sources does it state " though Art. 190 (5) of the Polish Constitution explicitly requires only the majority of votes." - only thing I see as possibly supporting that is the constitution itself but then that would be original research based on primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Polish High Court and the Lawyer's association regard the amendment as unconstitutional because of Art. 190, I've added a corresponding NZZ article. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My question was about where in the source does it say that the Polish constitution explicitly requires the majority of votes. If it's a question of a consitutionality of an amendment then that needs to be explained. I'm still not seeing it in the NZZ. All these sources just say "it used to be a majority vote, now it'll be 2/3".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, your NZZ source does explicitly state that what PiS is doing with the media etc. is exactly what every other party has done since it came into power.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Das Oberste Gericht sowie der Anwaltsverband veröffentlichten Stellungnahmen, in denen sie den Entwurf als verfassungswidrig beurteilten, unter anderem weil das Grundgesetz in Artikel 190 ausdrücklich festhält, das Verfassungsgericht entscheide mit Stimmenmehrheit." The NZZ is pretty clear about the Supreme Court and the Lawyer's view and they explicitly refer to Art. 190. (and btw. Zürich is in Switzerland) HerkusMonte (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not questioning the verifiability of the High Courts and the lawyer's view. What I'm saying is that you can't write in wikipedia voice that constitution "explicitly requires only a majority vote", because that's the whole bone of contention. So at the very least it needs to be explained better. I have no idea what Zurich has to do with anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

190 (5) is pretty unambiguous, if you know any source claiming the opposite, you might add that. Meanwhile we use what WP:RS say. HerkusMonte (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Walesa

Also, if we're going to have all kinds of quotes by Walesa it might be worth mentioning that him and Kaczynski have pretty much hated each other since, oh, 1990 when the Kaczynski brothers started Porozumienie Centrum after getting into conflict with him (short version of the story).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Walesa's statement caused international attraction and was reported in the news pretty much worldwide, he's not just somebody who has a private feud with Kaczynski. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Paris Hilton causes also international attraction.Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. Still I do think that NPOV requires that some background and context is provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wałęsa called for a referendum about the latest changes of law - POV

There was no referendum under the rules of Platforma Obywatelska (except 2015 which was a part of Bronisław Komorowski campaign).Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Three questions:

1) Should Piotr Glinski be mentioned in the background section?

2) Should the Pardoning of Mariusz Kamiński be mentioned in the background section?

3) Should the new Polish media law be mentioned? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Glinski

1) Should Piotr Glinski be mentioned in the background section? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

See related discussion Talk:Constitutional crisis in Poland, 2015#Piotr Glinski in background

No Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Kamiński

2) Should the Pardoning of Mariusz Kamiński be mentioned in the background section? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

See related discussion Talk:Constitutional crisis in Poland, 2015#Pardoning of Mariusz Kamiński

No Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Media law

3) Should the new Polish media law be mentioned ? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

See related discussion Talk:Constitutional crisis in Poland, 2015#Constitutional crisis vs. Constitutional court crisis

No Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Biased lead: caused domestic and international criticism

The lead presents only one POV, the government is supported by millions of Poles.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Piotr Glinski in background

In November Piotr Gliński, the new minister of culture and First Deputy Prime Minister, tried to halt the staging of Elfriede Jelinek's "Death and the Maiden" at the Polish Theatre in Wrocław, because he regarded it as pornographic. In a letter to the Governor of Lower Silesia Gliński wrote: "The Ministry of Culture expects that you order the immediate suspension of the production". Glinski's approach caused concerns about an intended control of artistic productions. Asked about the legal basis of his demand in a TV interview Gliński stressed: "This is a pornographic program, in fact, just as your station has been spreading propaganda and manipulation for a few years," he told the interviewer, “and that is going to end as this is not how the public television should function." The journalist was almost immediately suspended, but returned later.

The New York Times explicitly mentions Glinski as an example of the new policy in Poland which caused "concern that the new government intended to control artistic productions it did not approve of." This is an important background information, especially because the direct attempt of the deputy prime minister to censor a stage play is a constitutional problem. HerkusMonte (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to mention this in an NPOV manner. Essentially, there's nothing wrong in the minister of culture's attempt to prevent filth like that from being presented in public television. Dorpater (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"filth like that from being presented in public television"? There was a controversial stage play at the Wroclaw theatre, nothing on TV. There was only an interview with Karolina Lewicka on TV. Please don't call a journalist "filth like that". Do you see any NPOV problems? HerkusMonte (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Dorpater misanderstands, the life sex (filth) was to be presented in the theater, not on TV.

German journalists don't attack German ministers the way Lewicka did. If you believe that Lewicka's ideas are better, please address ARD and ZDF. Lewicka may instruct conformistic German TV journalists. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@HerkusMonte - I characterized as 'filth' Jelineks oeuvres. I remember I read excerpts from those when she was awarded the Noble prize in 2004. Dorpater (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this has nothing to do with the "constitutional crisis". It's just WP:COATRACKING "things that the new government has done which I JUSTDONTLIKE" into this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(Also, it's either "Death and the Maiden 2" by Jelinek or it's "Death and the Maiden" by Dorfman. But it can't be "Death and the Maiden" by Jelinek)Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Blame it on these horribly lame journalists at the New York Times et al., they all call it just Jelinek's Death and the maiden.

Regarding the constitutional crisis: the New York Times explicitly mentions Glinski's attempt to control artistic productions to explain the background of the mass protests in Warsaw and the current situation in Poland. JUSTDONTLIKE is indeed applicable, just not the way you intend. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times DOES NOT state that this Glinski thing is part of any "constitutional crisis". *You* are the one who made that synthesis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the NYT? We're talking about the "background" and off course the NYT refers to Glinski, Jelinek and the TV interview to explain the background of the protests in Warsaw and the whole situation in Poland. Or do you think the protests are completely unrelated to this "crisis"? HerkusMonte (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The protests are against some of the things that the new government has done which some people don't like. The "constitutional crisis" is one of those things, but that doesn't mean that the other things that some people also don't like are part of this "constitutional crisis". What does the Glinski thing have to do with the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal? Nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(and just for two personal notes: Dorfman's D&tM > > Jelinek's D&tM2, and also why is it that we never read about any country "lurching" to the left? Is it that it's only physically possible to "lurch" to the right? Anyway, my WP:NOTAFORUM violation over now) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the protests started after Duda refused to swear in the "old" judges and ignored the court's decision. The "Glinski thing" has something to do with the protests, at least the NYT regards it this way, and that's what the article should reflect. HerkusMonte (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote. The "Glinski thing" might have something to do with the protests. But this isn't the article about the protests. This is an article about the "constitutional crisis".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Come on, this turns into absurdity. 50,000 people on the streets of Warsaw and thousands in other Polish cities but no, has nothing to do with any kind of crisis. They probably just have a walk. HerkusMonte (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

One more time, you are completely misrepresenting what I said. The "Glinski thing" has nothing to do with the constitutional crisis. The New York Times, or any other source that you've provided DOES NOT say it does. *You* are the one who wants to connect these things into some kind of POV WP:SYNTHESIS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And if you think that this was a large protests, then may I suggest you write about something more in your area of expertise, such as the ongoing anti-immigrant protests in Germany? If this one protests in Poland constitutes a "crisis" then surely the protests which have been on going in Germany for several months now constitute a complete break down of social order.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The theater is finnaced by tax-payers and the majority of tax-payers never visits theaters, so poor old people finance crazy art experiments.

The theater announced sex act as an important part of the play (still does [2]). There are two opinions why the sex act wasn't presented - that it was propaganda from the very beginning or that the sex act didn't look good.

The Minister was against misusing public funds.

The theater has serious financial problems and the president (?) was conflicted with Platforma administration.

There were no mass demonstrations against Glinski.

Please name one public media journalist who attacked Platforma during the 8 years the way Lewicka attacked the new minister.

The play is based on "Der Tod und das Mädchen I–V. Prinzessinnendramen": Schneewittchen, Dornröschen, Rosamunde. Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis vs. Constitutional court crisis

There seems to be a misconception about the article's topic. It's the constitutional crisis and not just the Constitutional court crisis. The pardoning of a politician by the Polish President was criticized e.g. by Andrzej Zoll and Jan Zimmermann, who explicitly called it unconstitutional [3].

The media law is not just a minor amendment, it sparks concern over Press Freedom in Poland, triggers concern for freedom and faces criticism that the party was tampering with the freedom of the press. Frans Timmermans (i.e. the European Commission)expressed concern for Poland’s media freedom.

It's all about basic principles of the Polish constitution and not just trivial political criticism and that's the article's topic. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

But you don't get to decide the scope of the article. That is determined by sources and Wikipedia policy. And that means that care needs to be taken so that this article doesn't become a POV WP:COATRACK for "things that I don't like that the PiS government in Poland has done recently". You can of course write a paper/essay on the "principles of the Polish constitution" but Wikipedia isn't the place to try and "publish" that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

To be more specific the media law basically has nothing to do with Poland's constitution. It's just a law that some people don't like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Freedom of Press is not guaranteed by the Polish constitution? Are you sure? It's not about my view, not at all, I don't have any influence on the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times or on Frans Timmermans. Several international politicians and organizations have raised concerns about the Freedom of Press and the rule of law in Poland. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe is concerned about the new law and its impact on the integrity and independence of public service media, as a vital condition for genuine democracy. The European Commissioner for Human Rights calls on the Polish President not to sign the law The EBU et.al. issued a Media Freedom complaint to the European Council

But who cares, Freedom of Press has nothing to do with the Polish constitution, right? That's absurd, completely absurd. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please drop the sarcasm, especially since you're not very good at it. It's not even correctly applied. I didn't say "freedom of press" was not guaranteed by the Polish constitution. Don't put words in my mouth, that's rude. What I said is that *this law* has nothing to do with this "constitutional crisis". Which it doesn't. It's just tacked on into this article. I'm working under the assumption that this distinction is not that hard to understand, but perhaps I should revise that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You said the media law has nothing to do with the constitution, which is absurd because every single law "has something to do with" the constitution - it has to be constitutional. As repeatedly explained and proven by plenty of sources the media law has been criticized as violating the principles of Freedom of the Press. The Freedom of Press is part of the Polish constitution and thus its violation causes constitutional problems. Very simple, actually. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess in that sense every single law does have something to do with some constitution. Shall we start an article on every single law ever passed in every single country? Wouldn't that be... a little ridiculous? Your last two sentences are your own personal opinion and original research. You may claim that this has been "repeatedly explained and proven" but all you got is your own assertions and no sources.

Now. EVEN IF somehow this law wound up being challenged on constitutional grounds (which may not even be within TK's provenance) THAT DOES NOT make this part of the "Constitutional Crisis". This isn't that hard to understand. The Supreme Court of the US (not quite the same as TK) declares various laws unconstitutional all the time. That doesn't mean that every single time this happens there's a "constitutional crisis". The "constitutional crisis" is simply about the laws concerning the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal. Everything else - as has been repeatedly explained and proven - is just tacking on "things I don't like about the new Polish government" POV, WP:COATRACK style.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If you know of any law causing protests by the EU, the European Commission, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE, the European Broadcasting Union, the European Federation of Journalists, the Association of European Journalists (AEJ), the Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists within days, I'll be happy to write an article about it.

Now, is the media law part of a broader crisis? What's the view of some WP:RS?

The economist: [4] "Since parliamentary elections in October, Poland’s far-right Law and Justice party (PiS) has controlled the country’s presidency and both chambers of parliament. It has spent its first two months in power tightening its grip over the security services, the constitutional tribunal and the civil service. Now it is purging the country’s public media."

NYT: Poland's Lawmakers Approve New Law on State Media Control "The fast pace and the nature of the reforms undertaken by the government since it took power last month have led to large street protests in Warsaw and some other Polish cities and have alarmed some EU leaders".

Time (magazine): A media bill in Poland sparks concerns over Press Freedom "Poland’s conservative government has introduced a bill to reform the country’s public broadcasters, effectively giving the government power to appoint or dismiss their media executives.(...) The move comes after the President signed into law a controversial amendment to the functions of the country’s top constitutional court on Monday that, critics say, weakens the court’s ability to give checks and balances to the ruling party"

DW: Polish government moves to control public media "Monday, PiS-backed President Andrzej Duda passed into law a reform of Poland's top constitutional court, despite mass protests and claims by the opposition that the changes threaten judicial independence. Under the proposed new media legislation, senior figures in public radio and television would in future be appointed by the treasury minister, and no longer through contests by the National Broadcasting Council."

The Irish Times: News that the government has pressed ahead over the Christmas break with two controversial laws that could curtail judicial and media freedom has sparked concern.

Die Zeit (own translation):Polens Parlament beschließt Einschränkung der Medienfreiheit First the Constitutional Court, now the public media: In a rush Poland's new government has decided the next controversial reform plans

All these sources explicitly connect the amendments of the media law and the court reform. They don't use the term "crisis", they don't say, "this amendment is part of a constitutional crisis" but they describe the situation in context and the correlation of events. And our job is to mirror the content of sources. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The situation is serious, German politicians witha little help of their EU firends want to influence the legal government of Poland. Last year the EU attacked antyimmigration politics of Hungary, now Denemark and Slovenia are allowed to do the same. There are still better (old) and worse (new) members of the EU. Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem of media freedom in Poland, please don't misinform. There is the problem that the opposition controls all public media financed by all Poles. There were problems of media freedom since 2008 ignored by the EU and you. It's called extremal bias.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

These newspaper articles are just writing up what the new Polish government has done since coming to power. They list'em. Which is what they're suppose to do, they're newspaper articles,. Now, unless you think that an article Things that the new Polish government has done recently would pass AfD, I don't see your point. We're in the business of writing *encyclopedia* articles not newspaper reports. And the topic of *this* encyclopedia article is "constitutional crisis". Which is about the controversy surrounding the staffing of the Constitutional Tribunal. All the other "criticisms" added in are, even if masqueraded as "background" are simply POV WP:COATRACKing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Which leads us back to the initial point: The topic is not just the Court crisis, it's about the Polish constitutional crisis, which includes potential breaches of the constitution by Duda and the violation of the principles of Press freedom by the new Media law (and yes, Press freedom is guaranteed by the Polish constitution). HerkusMonte (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The court crisis IS the constitutional crisis. All this other stuff is just "things the new Polish government has done which I don't like". And there has been no violation of freedom of the press (and yes, I know that's guaranteed by the constitution, nobody says otherwise, so please drop it), just controversy about how ***GOVERNMENT OWNED*** media (how many times does this distinction have to be pointed out before you stop it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?) should be staffed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump gets elected president (knock on virtual wood). He fires everyone who works for PBS and NPR (even Ira Glass!) and appoints a bunch of people from beitbart and other crazies. Then gets the Republican controlled Congress to pass laws saying "you can't remove these guys ever". Trump's people then proceed to unabashedly smear anyone who opposes Trump for four years. After four years Trump looses re-election. The new Democratic president and Congress pass a law undoing the "you can't remove these guys ever" Trump law and proceed to replace the breitbart and other Trump crazies with more moderate journalists. And now supposedly it's the Democratic party which is attacking "freedom of the press"? Really? That is the scenario we're talking about here. But like I said, this is actually off-topic and not related to the constitutional crisis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I know it's a boring repetition, but the EU, the European Commission, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE, the European Broadcasting Union, the European Federation of Journalists, the Association of European Journalists (AEJ), the Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists tend to disagree. And it's not about the staff, it's about the fundamental organization of public media. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And Trump stands for Mr. Kaczynski, who chose a "former Neo-Nazi" like Piotr Farfał to head TVP last time? HerkusMonte (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And like I said, this has nothing to do with the constitutional crisis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And please keep in mind that BLP applies to this page like any other on Wikipedia. In particular the whole thing about "Kaczynski, who chose a "former Neo-Nazi" like Piotr Farfal" is completely false and a clear BLP violation. In fact you completely flipped the situation on its head. I might remove your comment based just on that. Kaczynski actually demanded that Farfal be removed from TVP [5]. One more BLP-violating stunt like that and I will report you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm usually not a defender of Mr. Trump but don't you think it's a BLP violation to make such imputations as you did? HerkusMonte (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

My "imputation" was explicitly a hypothetical. Your comment said something completely false about a LP stated as true. That's the difference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Back to topic: Timothy Garton Ash in The Guardian, 7 January 2016:The pillars of Poland’s democracy are being destroyed

"With attacks on the constitution, media and civil service, events have taken a dangerous turn. The country’s traditional friends should raise their voices

Poland, the pivotal power in post-communist central Europe, is in danger of being reduced by its recently elected ruling party to an illiberal democracy. Basic pillars of its still youthful liberal democracy, such as the constitutional court, public service broadcasters and a professional civil service, are suddenly under threat. The voices of all allied democracies, in Europe and across the Atlantic, must be raised to express their concern about a turn with grave implications for the whole democratic west

And this needs to happen soon. For the political blitzkrieg of the past two months suggests that the strategy of the Law and Justice party (known by its Polish acronym as PiS), and specifically of its one true leader, Jarosław Kaczyński, is to do the dirty work of transforming the political system rapidly, even brutally,..."

Just another example of the correlation of events as described by WP:RS. It's not about a court crisis, it's about the pillars of democracy (A political Blitzkrieg against the the whole political system, that's a pretty rigorous diction) HerkusMonte (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is just another editorial. And as pointed out above, while it's fine for newspaper articles to write about "correlation of events" (i.e. "things that the new Polish government has done recently") that's not suitable for encyclopedia articles which simply cannot be laundry lists of... "things that the new Polish government has done recently (that I don't like)".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

article name

"Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015" is obviously a more accurate name which reflects the article content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources call it "Constitutional crisis" and not "court crisis". The sources describe the whole political and constitutional crisis in Poland (see discussion above) and not just a juridical problem. We should stick to the sources. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the articles and arguments and came to conclusion that indeed Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 is indeed a better title.Herkus-you are against consensus here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The title of this article is not a proper name. It is a descriptive title, and slightly longer title is a more precise description. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What about Political crisis in Poland, 2015? Dorpater (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Too wide and not what this article is about, the dispute is about Constitutional Court. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about the Constitutional crisis (anymore) because you and your colleagues removed half of the content. I would support a broader name like suggested by Dorpater. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Herkus, it's pretty clear that consensus is against you here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

With 3 against 1? Well, now it is 3 against 2. The move is controversial, so please request a move instead of forcing it through. The sources mention the original title mainly. And this controversial removal first remove sourced material that fits to the current lead and theme of the article but not to your preferred one and then move without RM. Yeah, sure.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

German criticism

The fact that a lot of the criticism and hysteria is coming specifically out of German media/politicians has been noted. Really quickly, here's one source [6], though there are several others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"Which is just another editorial." To reduce the international criticism to just "German" is really extremely POVish. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

International criticism is still here. But since the bulk of interference comes from Germany, responses to it are notable and separate. Anyway, even German and British MP's in Europarliament have reacted to it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Update. As of today German ambassador has been summoned by Polish Foreign Minister to explain anti-Polish attacks by German politicians.Meeting will be tomorrow.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardoning of Mariusz Kamiński

The pardoning isn't a constitutional problem. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Off course it is. The Presidential right to pardon is based on the constitution and if Duda uses this right in a illegal way, it's a constitutional problem. Duda's doctoral adviser has explicitly stated that Duda breached the Constitution [7] HerkusMonte (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but one reference doesn't make you an expert.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, Prof. Zimmermann is. Unless someone presents a proper reasoning why the breach of the constitution by the President of Poland shouldn't be mentioned in this article, I'll restore that part soon. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In another words - you know you push your POV, but you don't care. Xx236 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To make clear what this dispute is about:

In March 2015 Mariusz Kamiński, the former head of the Central Anticorruption Bureau was sentenced to three years in prison and a 10-year ban on the exercise of a public office, because of abuse of power and illegal phone tapping. Kamiński had appealed, the verdict was not final yet. In November 2015 President Duda pardoned Kamiński because, according to his spokesman, his case had a "political character" and people who fight corruption "deserve special protection."

Duda's decision was criticized, e.g. by Andrzej Zoll, the former President of the Constitutional Court, because the right to grant pardon requires a final criminal conviction. Zoll said: "We are at the edge of lawlessness, and that makes me very afraid. One party wants all the power, absolute power. This is called totalitarianism, and we go in this direction." Duda's thesis adviser at the University of Cracow, Prof. Jan Zimmermann, regards the pardon as unconstitutional and illegal.

Kaminski took over responsibility for the secret services in Beata Szydło's cabinet immediately after he was pardoned by President Duda. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So his decision was criticized. Unless this actually gets into legal proceeding against Duda this is just a non-notable instance of the opposition trying to score political points.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References