Jump to content

Talk:Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 10 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a rough consensus that this crisis is only about the Constitutional Court and not more broadly about the entire Polish Constitution. I'd suggest also having a new RM to see if there is a consensus to rename to Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis, 2015 to be more inline with the parent article (there was no consensus for that here though because only a small percentage of the editors involved commented on that proposal). Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 → Polish Constitutional crisis (2015) – The english speaking sources name this the Polish constitutional crisis, not just the Constitutional Court Crisis. Move per WP:NC. Additionally, this removal has been done before in an attempt to narrow down the scope of this article, removing sourced material as offtopic and Coatrack, which implies that a move was planned later, but doesn't look offtopic or Coatrack at all under the previous topic name (which was 2015 Constitutional crisis (Poland)) Müdigkeit (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The controversy is about Constitutional Court, not about the Constitution. Thus Polish Constitutional Court crisis is a better title.English sources confirm that controversy is about Court not the Constitution.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The issue concerns the appointments to the Constitutional Tribunal, hence this is the proper name. Everything else is just tacked on in an attempt to turn this into a POV WP:COATRACK of "things I don't like about the new Polish government". The media law, the other stuff - none of that has been challenged on constitutional grounds or has anything to do with the constitution except in the imagination (original research) of some biased Wikipedia editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
More specifically The Constitution is NOT in any kind of crisis or involved in any kind of controversy. The Constitutional Tribunal is involved in the controversy. The title needs to reflect the topic accurately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about, exactly? The sources name it a constitutional crisis. Not a crisis in the Polish Constitutional Court. Do you have anything (sourced) to the contrary?--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Some sources use that as a shorthand. But they all talk about a crisis in the Polish Constitutional Court (Tribunal, actually, which we should be precise about, because there's also Supreme Court of Poland which is a different entity but which could be easily confused with a "constitutional court", due to the naming similarity with the American institution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
But it's "Constitutional Court" (though really it should "Constitutional Tribunal"). If you're referring to the "Polish Constitutional crisis" version, then yes, you're right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops, HandsomeFella, you are correct here. It would have to be lowercase.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
You did realize that all sources call it "Constitutional crisis" and that large parts of the article were deleted (including such sources) and this page was just moved away from the original "Constitutional crisis" title (ignoring WP:RM) HerkusMonte (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not quite true, though some use that shorthand - doesn't mean we have to, see WP:PRECISE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
After looking at sources, it seems that events related to media (like those re-included here) probably belong to this page, unless we have something even wider like Polish political crisis, 2015. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support; just for the record. All sources call it Constitutional crisis, describing the background of this crisis, the breaches of the constitution by Mr. Duda and constitutionally problematic behaviour of Mr. Glinski. It just doesn't fit PiS propaganda. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources please regarding "constitutionally problematic behaviour of Mr. Glinski". BTW it's Professor Gliński. Many German politicians are Dr., sometimes with plagiarism accusations, do they become Mr. here?
Was the recent German public TV muteness constitutional? Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
See related discussion above (Piotr Glinski in the background). The heading of the Guardian article is just an example ("Piotr Gliński’s move seen by civil liberties groups as a sign country is poised for a return to draconian state censorship") Draconian state censorship is a pretty distinct wording. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"constitutionally problematic behaviour of Mr. Glinski" - that's only in your imagination. It's only your interpretation. It's your POV. It's your original research. Nothing to do with the "constitution" has actually been invoked by anyone in regard to Glinski. Glinski has nothing to do with any kind of constitutional tribunal crisis, or even with any (not existing) constitutional crisis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
See related discussion above: it's the NYT, the Irish Times and The Guardian, not just me. And if you don't see the correlation of fears of "draconian state censorship" and the constitution, I can't help. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No, not one of these sources say that the Glinski thing has anything to do with the constitution. That's solely your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE - the above !vote is from an account with less than ten edits, which was created mostly to follow my edits around and start trouble. See [1] [2]. Note also that, per admin who closed the sock puppet investigation, the user is "hiding their true location". This is not a legitimate !vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop lying, Marek. I have more than 10 edits when you consider the IP I used before creating the account (which was suggested to me by an admin); I do not follow you around, I do not start trouble, and I am not hiding my true location: I admitted that was my IP and my edits when I created the account. Can you please remain civil or do I have to lodge a complaint against you? Please, disregard Marek's accusations, everybody, he is just confused. --Remote Helper (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You have ten edits with this account. You created this account when I filed an SPI. At the SPI page the closing admin noted that you were "hiding your true location". Both the edits for your current account and for the IP address consisted SOLELY of you following me around and starting stupid edit wars, or jumping in to revert me. I would love it if you tried to file a complaint against me. You should have been blocked previously since your only purpose here is harassment and stalking. Goodbye.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Your words are too paranoid and too angry to discuss with you. "Goodbye"? Does that mean you are going to stop harassing me and make false accusations? I hope so, we have an encyclopedia to build and I have no time for these ridiculous feuds. --Remote Helper (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC) PS If you continue harassing me, I will file a complaint against you. It is not a threat, it's a promise.
No, it is not precise - a crisis of the Constitutional Court would suggest an internal problem, but the problem seems to be more between the court and the executive/legislative. Constitutional crisis is more precise, User:Staszek Lem.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No it does not suggest anything like that. It means "crisis primarily involving constitutional court". Of course it involves different parts of politics. But we are not going to call it European crisis (Poland 2015). We name it according to essence. And "Constitutional crisis" is not more precise as explained already elsewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. "Constitutional crisis" is misleading and inaccurate. It implies that there's something about the *constitution of Poland* which is causing controversy and the crisis. But nobody's arguing about the constitution (yet). Nothing's going on with it. What people are arguing about and what is causing the crisis and the controversy is the constitutional tribunal. The article, if it has the word "crisis" in it, needs to describe what the crisis is about, not what some editors want the crisis to be about - it should not mislead the readers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There is "something" going on in Poland which causes international attraction, especially the new media law caused domestic and international protests of several politicians, scholars and organizations (the OSCE isn't just someone, a formal discussion about the rule-of-law in an EU country is unprecedented). This is certainly important enough to be mentioned at Wikipedia. So, if we keep this article at "court crisis" we would just need to create another article, probably something like "political crisis" or whatever. The real question is: Do we summarize the events under one topic (like several WP:RS do) or do we splinter the info. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
An election happened in Poland and one party lost power. I don't know about different articles, but you can't make this article into a list of all the things that the new government has done which you don't like. No matter what the title, it's going to have the word "constitutional" in it. And this Glinski thing or some of the other things you're trying to cram into here have nothing to do with the Polish constitution. Yes, yes, I know *you* think that there's some kind of constitutional violation going on but until you become expert on Polish constitutional law and get these views published, it doesn't matter. Actually, even then it wouldn't be enough - laws get declared unconstitutional all the time and I don't think we need a Wikipedia article on every law that gets declared unconstitutional in some country (and that's putting aside that this hasn't even happened).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
In other words, even if this is notable, there might be better articles where you can put in this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
We might split the article and maybe Political crisis in Poland, 2015 is a better title, maybe, maybe not. But this needs to be discussed and not just pushed through by deleting anything you don't like (and NO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe does not protest against a law all the time, neither does the EU Commission discuss about the rule-of-law in an EU country all the time, in fact it's pretty unique). HerkusMonte (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
At this point it's too early to talk about "Political crisis in Poland, 2015". There was an election, switch in the party that's in power, some controversy, some protests. "Political crisis" is way to strong and not based on sources. My suggestion would be to add some info, perhaps in a "Criticism" section, to some existing article on the topic of the new government, although I'm not sure which one. Maybe Cabinet of Beata Szydło but that's just a list. Maybe to Law_and_Justice#In_government_again, which actually could use an expansion. I do want to be clear that not everything you're trying to put in here would belong there either (the Glinski thing is just a non-notable political spat for example, and most of it would be just a form of WP:RECENTISM) - on the other hand the media law thing could go in there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Still think that Polish political crisis, 2015-2016 would be an acceptable title. The dispute is no longer merely about the Constitutional Court, and the article reflects this. Dorpater (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2016

Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 → Polish constitutional crisis, 2015 – page was moved without a prior WP:RM discussion though clearly controversial – HerkusMonte (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You asked for "consensus", you got consensus, the page was moved, per consensus. The fact that you don't like this consensus after the fact is your problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a related WP:RM discussion, a discussion on the talk page about the "article name" (without even suggesting a new name) is not the way controversial moves are dealt with. And please read WP:RMCI; an involved editor is not the one to decide when consensus is reached. And certainly not after just 32 hours (WP:RMNAC: "Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days))". HerkusMonte (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You are wikilawyering. One person moved the article. You moved it back demanding "consensus". Then two other people agree with the new title and moved the article again. You kept moving it back, three times, i.e. move-warring against consensus (the very consensus you asked for). What you are effectively asking for here, is for other people to move-war on your behalf. There's an RM on the talk page currently. Let it run its course and we'll see.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:RMNAC: "Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)". There was no consensus, there wasn't even a proper discussion and an involved editor is not the one to decide when consensus is reached . Seriously, WP:IGNOREALLRULES is fine but one shouldn't overplay. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:RMNAC: "Experienced and uninvolved registered editors in good standing are allowed to close requested move surveys. Any non-admin closure must be explicitly declared with template (...) placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the (...) template. ....In any case where a non-admin closer does resort to a technical move request or speedy deletion request, the closer should actively monitor that request, and be ready and willing to perform all tidying after the move ...". And this refers to a properly requested move! HerkusMonte (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
So in response to someone pointing out that your incessant quotation of policy when it's not really applicable, per WP:GAME, is a form of Wikilawyering you... quote the policies some more in order to Wikilawyer the issue? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@HerkusMonte and Volunteer Marek:

Continued discussion

Note I merged this with the earlier RM and removed the RM template that doesn't transclude if there is already a move request on the page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Title history

That's seven moves in two days. Enough is enough. HerkusMonte, you have an odd way of reverting undiscussed moves. I can't tell whether you think Constitutional should be capitalized or not, and whether the year should be ", 2015" at the end of the title, or at the beginning of the title, Polish or parenthetically "(Poland)" at the end, and whether it should be a "Polish crisis" or a "crisis in Poland". I see that the majority has somehow forced their way, in making the discussion start at their preferred title. However, as this is such a new article, there has not been sufficient time for a stable title to form, thus there cannot be a "no consensus" default for this discussion. Whatever title this lands at, will be be a consensus formed in this discussion. A big trout slap to Volunteer Marek for attempting to establish consensus through disruptive move warring. The discussion should be about moving from the original 27 December 2015 title, but as that's so recent, we'll let this slide, with that caveat that a clear consensus should be formed simply to keep the current title. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Polish_Constitutional_Court_crisis,_2015&oldid=696996498 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058:Well, policy WP:TITLECHANGES says that it should be kept at the article title of the first version that was not a stub, if there is no consensus and no stable title. Which would be the first title, as this is not a stub.--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I suppose so. In other words "no consensus" here could actually result in a move. Let's try to find a consensus though. Seems too important a topic not to try hard to find a consensus before giving up. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. The policy is NOT written to allow cynical editors to WP:GAME the system. Look, under Herkus' and Mudigkeit's interpretation of policy, I could start an article on a controversial topic under an obviously POV title, say Right wing terrorism against abortion clinics or something. Then that becomes "status quo" and I can sabotage any kind of consensus by always disagreeing and the article remains this POV title until we go through the process of an RM, which takes forever and can be easily gamed. On the other hand, the reasonable interpretation is that if enough people say "hey, that's a very POV title and we should move", then the article should just be moved. One person then moves-war to keep their original title. Who's to blame here?
The above is the *definition* of wikilawyering and gaming. Trying to use Wikipedia policies in a bad faithed way to push POV and get what you want. So no, I don't think the article should be moved if it's "no consensus". The article was moved with existing consensus, so it shouldn't be moved back unless there's clear consensus to do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And to see how easy it is to sabotage an RM and generate "no consensus" just look at the account User:Remote Helper who's only purpose here is to stalk and harass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You should be looking in the mirror when talking about "gaming" and "lawyering". Let's just drop these unproductive procedural arguments and move back to talking on substance. Moving on to the section below. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll skip my reply to that for the sake of moving the discussion in a productive direction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a good look in the mirror would do you good, Marek, that and some time away from Wikipedia. --Remote Helper (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
First, you inserted your comment in between my comment and somebody's else's, breaking the conversation. Second, your comment is just typical gratuitous trolling which adds nothing to the discussion, which is basically all you've done on Wikipedia, both with this account and with your previous accounts. Someone please explain to me why this user isn't banned yet. The above comment should simply be removed per WP:TALKNO, but hey, since it's pretty good example of the style of your contributions and the fact that you're WP:NOTHERE, I'll be happy to leave it for everyone to see.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought you had said good-bye... You must be one of those wiki editors who put up signs saying "I am gone, I am going on vacation" but then they are always there... Your behavior and this discussion are not productive, I will let you go on by yourself... :-) Cheerless cheers, --Remote Helper (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Wbm1058 Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have moved the page to slightly different titles. But it is technically impossible to simply undo the controversial moves and I didn't expect such a blatant ignorance of WP:RM (WP:RMNAC, WP:RMCI) and WP:TITLECHANGES. Once again: I'm sorry, I learned my lesson about the proper way of technical moves.
Volunteer Marek It's the definition of WP:GAMING to ignore WP:RM (WP:RMNAC, WP:RMCI) and WP:TITLECHANGES and ask the other one to respect WP:RM. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: This "obvious POV title" is used by the international press like New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc. Your claim is pretty absurd. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
(Added later) No, Herkus, the definition of gaming is, from the guideline itself: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia". Which is exactly what you are doing. The definition of Wikilawyering is, from the essay itself: "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". Which is exactly what you've been doing. You asked for consensus. You got consensus. You didn't like it. So you started quoting policies left and right in an attempt to thwart the implementation of consensus. That is gaming and wikilawyering to a T.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
(added later, too)Or maybe it is not. You said that there was consensus to move after the thread was not even two days old, and after at least one editor protested. Nothing in that discussion looked finished or stale. If something is changed mid-discussion and reverted, you shouldn't readd it. Claiming consensus after about one day in an active discussion with few editors partipiciating and disagreement and implementing it is not acting according to underlying principles. The opposite is true - you are acting contrary to the underlying principles. Let's discuss the rest on your talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
A newspaper can publish an opinion piece on "Criticism of the recent actions of the Polish government". But that doesn't mean that such an article would be encyclopedic here on Wikipedia. You actually know this. So you're trying to use *this* article as a WP:COATRACK for exactly that kind of non-encyclopedic POV. Your title was part of that attempt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
International press like New York Times have their own rules, wikipedia has its own. Newspaper are not shy to use dramatic titles for obvious reasons. Please don't use the words like "absurd" in discussions; they are not helping to defend your position, only alienating your opponents. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why do you think that constitutional crisis is a dramatic title?
It has been argued that this is a matter about the Constitutional Court. However, it is a matter between the Constitutional Court and the legislative as well the executive. It is not an internal crisis. --Müdigkeit (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It is dramatic because it is a wild exaggeration. No it is not an internal crisis (of ConsTrib), yes it is about Constitutional Tribunal. Yes it is about its interaction with other powers. But we are not going to call it "Polish Constitutional Trybunal cum Sejm cum Pan Wójt po Piwie cum Etc. Crisis, 2015". It centers around Trybunal, hence the title. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell my why it is a wild exaggeration? It doesn't look to me like that.--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No one has explained why that name is supposed to be be a wild exaggeration yet. It is an accurate description of what happened. My proposed name(with the addition that constitutional should be lowercase) and the original name of this article were sufficiently precise to identify and my proposed name(lowercase was an error) is the name english speaking sources use.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it's a "wild exaggeration" but it is certainly imprecise. The only thing going on that has anything to do with the constitution is the controversy surrounding the appointments to the Constitutional Tribunal. The other stuff that someone is trying to WP:COATRACK into this article are just political spats that occur when a new party takes power. They do not involve any "constitutional" issues (despite the attempts at original research by some editors). Per WP:PRECISE the title should refer to the Constitutional Tribunal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
But the scope of the article is unambiguously defined with the proposed definition. It is the constitutional crisis of 2015.(it might be later be necessary to move it again, to crisis of 2015-2016). Anything that is part of the crisis according to reliable sources can be included according to WP:WEIGHT. --Müdigkeit (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's got the word "constitutional" in it then it's about stuff that has to do with the constitution. It is not about other stuff that somebody doesn't like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is not about some other stuff that has not been named as a part of constitutional problems by reliable sources. So... at second thought, the removal of the old stuff might have really been offtopic. --Müdigkeit (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Q. As Polish Constitutional Court redirects to Constitutional Tribunal (Poland), if this is a specific crisis related to that body, and not a more broad constitutional crisis, should the article move to Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis, 2015? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. In fact Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis, 2015 is my preferred choice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Good catch. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Had expired?

Jan Cieński isn't able to define when a term expires, he isn't a legal power in Poland. wygaśnięcie kadencji trójki sędziów następuje jeszcze w trakcie ówczesnej kadencji Sejmu [3], so the old Sejm elected three judges whose terms were to finish after the election but during the old Sejm term, not had finished. Please don't misinform, you have been warned several days ago, see above.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Whom did you, Xx236 warn "several days ago" ( before January 21)? At whom is this directed? --Wuerzele (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cieński is a journalist, not a legal body

Xx236 left this message (in italics below) on my talk page today, which I am moving here, where it belongs, for all editors to see and to participate:

Cieński is a journalist, not a legal body to define terms of judges. Either quote a serious neutral source or don't touch my Fact. As far the president of Poland doesn't share your POV. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Xx236, Cieński being a journalist, not a legal body , that sounds good. PLease call me naiive, but I certainly do not want to "misinform", which you accuse me of. Help me:
  • Which diff are you referring to?
  • which source is non-serious and non-neutral?
  • which is "your fact" (honestly: you own one?- it shows you were angry when you wrote this) that I touched?
  • which POV did I share ?
please reply to these and I will respond to you / correct, whatever mistake I made, if I made one, once I understand.
Oh BTW I show on my userpage, which I know you visited, which languages I speak, but Polish unfortunately isnt one of them, I am afraid. Just FYI. Thank you for your understanding.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for International Reactions

This section is longer than almost the rest of the article combined. It's obviously undue to have a section "reaction to X" be longer than "what X actually is". And predictably a lot of this section is he-said/she-said kind of thing which really needs to be trimmed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously undue? No, not obviously. Please explain why that should be actually WP:UNDUE. If International Reactions is, according to the sources, an important part of this topic, then it is not.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Because "an important part of this topic" does not mean "longer than rest of the article combined". The section is being used to push POV. And the way this develops - and I've seen it hundreds of times on Wikipedia - is that a POV pusher from one side comes in and puts all their cherry-picked pro-X sources in to pad the "criticism" or "international reactions" section. Then a POV pusher from the other side comes in and puts in all their cherry picked anti-X sources to counter those. Then POV pusher 1 replies. Then POV pusher 2 replies. Etc. And the section becomes ridiculous. Which is sort of what we have now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Do pages about German internal politics cover Polish (i.e. International) reactions the same like this page about Polish internal politics covers German reactions? If not - is this bias acceptable here or maybe someone is breaking neutrality rules? Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have the same general feeling as Volunteer Marek, (although I wouldnt say "obviously"). To inform readers about what X actually is, is the top important thing of teh page; and thats why I even popped up to edit here recently, because it was so short on facts, but long on reactions, and reactions to reactions and discussion.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
By pure chance a certain user removed only critical views, while PiS-supporters remained untouched. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Not true, I removed both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, the "Reactions" section, and not just International Reactions, is already way too long. It makes no sense to go and triple it in size. At best those 5000k of text can be condensed into a short sentence or two. The article is about the crisis not about how some people feel about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, while you removed Jean Asselborn, representing the Council of the European Union, while you removed criticism by Amnesty International and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights such "important" figures like Hans-Olaf Henkel, representing a breakaway faction of the right-wing Alternative for Germany remain (incuding a lengthy quotation). And who cares for scholars like Timothy Garton Ash as long as the comment of a Polish bishop remains. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I removed Syed Kamal for one. But this isn't about bean counting. If more "anti-government" comments were removed than "pro-government" comments it's only because you really laid it on thick with the POV in the first place, cramming in every cherry picked comment out there you could find. So it's just a question of WP:DUEWEIGHT.
The bishop quote probably should be removed too, but that was in the domestic reactions section not the international reactions section, so your sarcastic comment is a bit off the mark there.
Anyway, overall the whole reactions thing needs to be *dramatically* cut down as now it's even more ridiculous than ever. Most, if not all, of the recently added text needs to go or get moved to the article on Committee for the Defence of Democracy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And oh yeah, those two new sections were added into the article willy-nilly, without checking if they contain redundant info (they do), without integrating them into the article, and without any pretense at NPOV or due weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

good source

This is really about as good and clear writing as you're going to find on the topic. Info should be incorporated into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a blog, you know that blogs are not WP:RS. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Not when the author is an expert on a subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Since some editors are apparently too lazy to click the "About" link themselves, allow me to provide a direct link here [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_Constitutional_Tribunal_crisis_(2015_–_ongoing)/Archive_3&oldid=1264652584"