Talk:Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

media

Let's discuss the media issue here.

First, Herkus, I'd appreciate it if instead of edit warring you actually addressed the issues raised - that the media situation isn't part of any "constitutional crisis". You have not provided any source to that effect. What you are doing is essentially constructing a WP:COATRACK for "criticism of PiS policy". But this is supposed to be an article on the constitutional crisis.

Second, please don't blind revert. You've not only restored objectionable text, you've also removed pertinent tags and undid other corrections. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you could start to read the sources instead of removing anything you don't like, but I'm not surprised at all. The Freedom of media is an integral part of the Polish constitution. It's pretty absurd to claim the new media law doesn't raise constitutional problems. At least the EBU etc. has just asked Duda to respect the Polish constitution (http://www3.ebu.ch/news/2015/12/ebu-appeals-to-polish-president "To preserve the integrity and independence of public service media as a symbol of a free and democratic country, we ask you in the strongest possible terms not to sign this measure into law, and certainly not without having first undertaken a careful analysis of its compatibility with the Polish constitution and the freedom and pluralism of the media, guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights,")

Several European politicians have raised concerns about the rule of law in Poland, the rule of law is a fundamental principle of any democratic constitution. The attempt to turn independent public media into a national cultural institute under direct control of the government raises obviously constitutional problems. It's hard to believe anybody could ignore that. HerkusMonte (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Several European politicians. Mostly German Herkus and EU ones. There is not much criticism in European countries like Slovakia, Hungary, UK or Czech Republic ;). Several European politicians have raised concerns about the rule of law in Poland, the rule of law is a fundamental principle of any democratic constitution. Interesting that they didn't point this out when Germany broke EU immigration laws last year.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Herkus, your personal opinions (and comments directed at editors rather than content along the lines of "I'm not surprised at all") are noted. However, without sources which state that the spats over public media appointments are part of this "constitutional crisis", that's all they are - your own personal opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

These "spats" are not about some silly appointments but about the conversion of free media into a national cultural institute under direct control of the government. And this is not my private view, it's what several international organizations and politicians criticize. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your own personal POV, although, sure there are others who share it. Regardless, this has nothing to do - and there is no sources which show otherwise - with any "constitutional crisis".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And ugh, this isn't even about any "free media" being put under "direct control of the government". That's nonsense. It's about who gets to decide the staff of *public* (not "free", but "public") media. As in, does the current government have the right to appoint people to the Polish equivalent of the BBC or PBS? The previous party - which when it was in power did exactly that - now claims that somehow when the new party does it, it's an "infringement on freedom of the press". The current party says that's ridiculous. What does this have to do with any kind of "constitutional crisis"? Beats me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, BBC executives are not appointed by the British Minister of Finance and the BBC is not a Cultural Institute under direct control of the government. And to call it "direct control" is not my own synthesis, but the way it is described by the AEJ [1] and the European Commissioner for Human Rights (The law worryingly places public service media under direct government control) and probably dozens of other sources including the NYT.

"(not "free", but "public") media" - I think you've got a significant misconception of the principles of Freedom of media. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You sure it's me? It's "free" as in Spartacus not "free" as in beer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please prove that in Germany the opposition controls all public media, as it is in Poland. It's not freedom but Polnische Wirtschaft.

Which editor-in-chef in Germany (Der Spiegel, Die Welt) has his/her prime-time talk show in public TV, like Tomasz Lis has. (His wife works for public TV, too.)

The Western journalists didn't protest against TV Trwam discrimination, expulsion of 25% of journalists from public TV and outsorcing of TV production, so they don't have any right to protest now. Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Millions of Poles voted for PiS to remove the TV presidents and journalists. No other party wanted to do this.Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing context

The article has a large section about criticism, the international reaction and the domestic response. But especially the international criticism is not limited to the juridical problems of the organization of the court. Especially the new media law was fiercely criticized and the whole discussion about sanctions, the rule-of-law in Poland etc. is only intelligible with some basic information about this background. The international criticism at least starting from January 2016 is incomprehensible without info about the media law. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree there's missing context but it's not what you think. The missing context here is actually the background to how the constitutional tribunal crisis arose - why did PO try to nominate additional judges? How were they able to do that? Why is PiS so adamant about getting new judges on there? What is the history of the constitutional tribunal? How did the constitutional tribunal act the last time that PiS was in power? Why is it such a politicized body? Does "checks and balances" here mean that the judiciary restrains the executive or that the executive restrains the judiciary? How about we get some of that in the article first (I provided a very good source which address some of these issues above)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

When PO+PSL elect 14 (of 15) judges it is democratic and constitutional. It's constitutional because noone understood the problem in 1997. No constitution should allow to destroy "checks and balances" for years. Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's already mentioned, but the latest criticism arose because of the media law, which is completely ignored here. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you have When anti-PiS control public media is democratic, when PiS removes propaganda activists is antidemocratic

It's not media law. it's public radio and TV law.

The information about the election is false, all 5 judges were elected before the end of the terms, which was sometimes criticised.

The difference between us is that I watched Polish public TVP, especially the TVP1 7:30 p.m. News and you didn't. Now you discuss with me on the basis of several biased articles and I know how biased the public TV was. Many Poles would prefer a better solution but the removal of propaganda commando from TVP was badly needed and the people weren't so decent to go away. Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Freedom for us, ban for our opponents

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Topic ban for X236

Who needs Polish opinions, we in the West know better what is going in Poland and how Poland should be governed. The problem is that Poles are "przekorni" (I don't know how to say it in English), when the West criticised, some Poles become angry.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT:"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

That is what should happen here.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

About how Polish sources should be included... And that X236 has strong opinions about these topics should be obvious after this and this.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Which these topics? Which topics are these and which are those? Either you support freedom of speech (including freedom for your opponents) or not.

Opinions about Germany written long way from Germany on the basis of biased opinions about Germany aren't reliable. The same for Poland, China nad Mauritus. Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. The pages are not for discussing or stating your personal opinions about articles. Biased sources may well be reliable sources - and it is not correct to exclude them just because they are biased. As long as certain criteria are met ( such as clearly stating who said that) they may be used as sources. Of course, Polish sources may be included - but the criteria should not be that sources are Polish or not, but rather if they are reliable sources and if they should be used according to WP:WEIGHT.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

References

POV, bad organization and writing

Herkus, can you provide an explanation for this revert [2]. An edit summary which just says "Restore" is pretty much equivalent to an edit summary which (honestly) admits "I'm just edit warring ya'll".

You removed source text. You removed essential clarifications - like who won the freakin' election. Which you know, is sort of important. You removed an explanation of what "PiS" is. Do you really think non-Polish and non-German readers will come to this page and be like "oh! PiS! Those guys!". Me thinks these are things which should be explained.

I'm sorry but this looks like just blind, unsubstantiated, reverting on your part. Please don't do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please precisely tell us what you are talking about? Your example shows that I restored the "caused criticism" in the WP:LEAD and a sentence about pessimistic opinion polls for the PO.

I'm sorry but this looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please don't do that. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about you making unjustified major changes. In this [3] edit. Did you just restore "caused criticism" in the lede? No. No, you didn't. You reverted to your own preferred wording (removing sources etc in the process) the entire "Election of Constitutional Court Judges" section. Does that diff look like you're just restoring two words to the lede? I don't know, maybe somebody slipped something in my coffee this morning, but that sure as hell does not look like just restoring two words to the lede, so please, cut it out.

And speaking of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GAME here is the context:

I edit the "Election of Constitutional Court Judges" section to clarify, provide info and fix some blatant mistakes.

You blindly revert within minutes claiming it's "unsourced" even though most of the text you added to the article was unsourced as well.

I add sources [4]. You complain about the refs being just bare urls. Which is a valid criticism... if you hadn't blindly reverted within minutes, not even giving me the chance to fill out the refs.

I, others, fill out the refs.

You revert anyway with an edit summary "ce, restore" [5], effectively pretending your edit is just some minor grammar corrections, rather than blatant edit warring.

So. I add text, you complain about lack of sources and revert, I add sources, you complain about formatting and revert, the refs are formatted to your specifications, you revert anyway under the disguise of a "copy edit". Now. Who's playing WP:GAMEs and who's got the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Completely baseless accusations, you should really take a closer look on your example, nothing was removed at all (except "court" in the title).

"even though most of the text you added to the article was unsourced as well", if you would take a look at the initial version of this article you will hardly find a new article based on such a large number of different sources. Every single sentence was based on sources. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There are double standards in this Wikipedia. An example:

• Gun politics in the United States is based mostly on documents and US texts, European opinions about US internal matters don't dominate.
• This article is based mostly on Western comments, quoting one side of the controversy, or Polish comments by one side of the controversy.

Three Polish editors were accused of poorly documented crimes and now there comes WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Like always - Battleground is when we are criticised, we are neutral fighters for freedom of Polish nation oppressed by bad Polish government. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ewa Thompson [6] explains the Western bias as postcolonialism [7].Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles aren't mystery or horror novels

Re: [8]

Really? You really think that "in a midnight session" is crucially important there? How about we do it right and describe PiS appointing judges on a "dark and stormy night" or "under the light of a full moon, with howling heard in the distance"? Or the Polish Sejm convening itself "under an unlucky star that fateful night"? Maybe we should change every instance of "said" to "whispered", just for the sake of the ambiance? "With a shaking hand President Duda inscribed his approval upon the parchment. Ominously, the light flickered for unknown reasons and a strange droning could be heard coming from the darkly lit hallway. Then footsteps echoed as Kaczynski entered the chamber through an arched doorway. Outside the wind wailed and flocks of black birds circled around the shinning dome of the Presidential palace. The robed figures seated around the tables began their arcane chant and a cold shiver passed through the press reporters present. One cameraman thought he saw a pellucid figure float across the scope of his lens, its spectral hands raised as if in warning."

Yeah, I don't think that "midnight session" really needs to be there. It's basically just trying to make the whole signing of the bill sound ominous and sketchy. It's POV pushing. Subtle POV pushing, but POV pushing nonetheless. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. The haste in which the amendments were pushed though is stressed by several sources, especially the simple fact that Mr. Duda appointed the judges just hours before the date of pronouncement of the CT caused attraction. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is crucial to the article. Of course they passed the amendments by the relevant deadlines. At the very least you need to word it better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

rule-of-law process

Could you please explain, what exactly needs to be clarified about the EU's rule-of-law process [9] HerkusMonte (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The way you're trying to describe it in this article is as if it was some serious step whereas most sources see it as EU Commission backing down from brinkmanship (no sanctions etc). Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The rule-of-law process according to Art. 7 of the Lisbon treaty is for sure a serious and unprecedented step. The EU commission never asked for sanctions, thus they can't "back down". It's also not a matter of "clarification" just because your own POV isn't sufficiently portrayed yet. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, it's only "unprecedented" because the "step" is brand new, it has just been established. Putting in "first time ever" and "unprecedented" without explanation or context is original research and POV.

On the other hand there are several sources which note that EU has backed down, and this is more or less a face saving measure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such source, I only know Mrs. Szydlo and the PiS spokesmen try to depict it like that. On the other hand pretty much all sources use the term "unprecedented". HerkusMonte (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, currently there is only one source in the article [10] for the info and as it happens it does not use the word "unprecedented".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In reality we use The Guardian's article "Brussel launches unprecedented EU inquiry into rule of law in Poland", I could easily list a dozen of similar sources. The other source refers to the comment of Amnesty International. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's one source. And the info is presented without a context - both the fact that originally they threatened sanctions but then settled for "inquiry" AND the fact that this inquiry is only "unprecedented" because the authorization for it is brand new.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No, "they" didn't because "they" (the EU commission) never asked for any kind of sanctions. The European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society asked for the implementation of the rule-of-law process according to Art. 7 , and that' exactly what's happening now.

Your complaints about the term "unprecedented" are completely irrelevant because we don't use this term (neither doe we use "for the first time" anymore), so please explain what exactly needs to be clarified . HerkusMonte (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)