Talk:Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing)

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)

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)

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  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)

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, information broadcasts, propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Three of them replaced judges whose nine-year terms had expired?
The three judges were elected in October, but their terms start in November. So the terms had not expired before the election. As far as I know the English is quite precise to describe such facts.Xx236 (talk)
 * On October 8, 2015 the Polish Parliament (Sejm) elected five new Polish Constitutional Court judges. Three judges retired in early November,  The question when a new judge may be elected isn't answered here. Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So rather were supposed to replace five judges, whose terms were almost, but not quite, over - three of them retired in November and two in December.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Civic Platform elected five new judges for the tribunal in early October, when opinion polls showed the party was likely to lose the October 25 elections. Parliament named three replacements for judges whose nine-year terms had expired, and two more whose terms were almost, but not quite, over HerkusMonte (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is a reliable source, why don't you reference it after had expired?
 * First October, next November. had expired in October but expired in November? Politico lies.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct timeline: Elections in October. Terms off three judges expire in November. Terms of two judges expire in December. All judges were appointed before elections although terms were due to after elections.31.0.67.168 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Kris

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 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)

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 ). 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.

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: "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 . 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)

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
 * 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
 * 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
 * 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)

Fascism is in France
National Front (France) Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This party is not 'fascist' by a long shot, otherwise you'd have to dismiss PiS as fascist, too - a complete absurdity. --Dorpater (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 17 March 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)

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 .Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 2 February 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, 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)

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)


 * Comment: "constitution" is not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalized. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:46, 10 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)


 * Oppose . If there is sourced content that allows to create an additional page on the wider subject of Polish Constitutional crisis, nothing prevents from creating such additional page.My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 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)


 * Support: that is what the sources call it! --Remote Helper (talk) 09:04, 11 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 . 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.


 * Oppose 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)
 * 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, 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)


 * Discussion copied to here from Requested moves/Technical requests.
 * 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)


 * 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. , 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 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_Constitutional_Court_crisis,_2015&oldid=696996498 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 13:23, 27 December 2015‎ created page Polish constitutional crisis, 2015
 * 02:58, 8 January 2016 moved page Polish constitutional crisis, 2015 to Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 (correct crisis)
 * 07:56, 8 January 2016 moved page Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 to 2015 Polish Constitutional crisis (rv undiscussed move, consistent title structure)
 * 08:12, 8 January 2016 moved page 2015 Polish Constitutional crisis to Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 over redirect (but this title is more accurate and precise)
 * 08:14, 8 January 2016 moved page Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 to Constitutional crisis in Poland, 2015 (per WP:RM please stop this and discuss)
 * 12:59, 9 January 2016 moved page Constitutional crisis in Poland, 2015 to Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 over redirect (As per other editors on discussion page, this is a dispute about Constitutional Court not about Constitution)
 * 13:07, 9 January 2016 moved page Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 to 2015 Constitutional crisis (Poland) (rv controversial move WP:TITLECHANGES, please search for WP:CONSENSUS)
 * 16:01, 9 January 2016 moved page 2015 Constitutional crisis (Poland) to Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 over redirect (Herkus, that's three editors who think a different name is warranted vs. just you. That's pretty much consensus)
 * 17:29, 10 January 2016 filed this requested move: Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 → Polish Constitutional crisis (2015)
 * 07:01, 11 January 2016 filed a request to revert undiscussed move: Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 → Polish constitutional crisis, 2015
 * 11:02, 11 January 2016 the request to revert undiscussed move is contested (diff), opening an out-of-process second open move request on this page.
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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.

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)

POV, bad organization and writing
Herkus, can you provide an explanation for this revert. 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 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 . 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", 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 explains the Western bias as postcolonialism .Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

which began November 19, 2015
It's POV, the other opinions are that the crisis started in June, when the law was changed, or in October, when 3+2 judges were elected.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

NO - the lede now is inaccurate when it states that the 'constitutional crisis' began in October 2015. Appointment by the previous Sejm of two "future" judges was a constitutional problem (as the law authorizing this was of doubtful constitutionality) but it had a constitutional solution, i.e. the doubtful law could be challenged before the Constitutional Tribunal. This is in fact what ultimately happened and the doubtful law was indeed struck down. The constitutional CRISIS did not begin until later, when Law & Justice illegally attempted to revoke the lawful appointments made by the previous Sejm and appoint usurpers to the tribunal. This was in November/December 2015, not October 2015.83.31.17.236 (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

rule-of-law process
Could you please explain, what exactly needs to be clarified about the EU's rule-of-law process 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 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)

Encyclopedia articles aren't mystery or horror novels
Re:

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)

The Polish Constitutional Court crisis ... Constitutional Tribunal
Court or Tribunal? There is no reason to use two different names in one phrase.Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you use two different names of the same subject? Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Xx236 I just read this, post and have no clue what you are talking about, though it sounds reasonable. I see no editor responded.
 * My advice: ping people if you want responses, otherwise this post is for naught. you seem fairly direct and decisive, so why not using username (ping) and diff (=precise reference info) in your post? Just saying...--Wuerzele (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The official English name of the court is the Constitutional Tribunal. The title should be fixed.Zagraniczniak (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

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, 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, (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)

Unreadable article
Hi. The bot asked to me to comment here on the rfc. I don't know much about the topic and I don't read Polish so I'm hesitant to say anything about the substance. But I do read English, and this article has some awful writing in it: e.g. "pending constitutional proceedings are liable to a compulsive latency time" or "this is simply a case where CDU politicians belonging to fraction in EU parliament" I assume that was supposed to say 'compulsory' and 'a faction'. I see that 'Herkus Monte' 'volunter marek' and others appear to read Polish. I am curious to find out what the heck is going on with this crisis. Would it be possible to spruce up the article a bit so that English speakers like myself can (try) to get a handle on the situation?. Thanks very much. Costatitanica (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually for that "compulsive" thing - that source is in German (and the other source is non-RS, a very skewed editorial) - so I can't help here... much. Ok, I'll try.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unreadable because the whole background section was removed. For someone unfamiliar with the topic it's just a listing of criticism and support of things not even mentioned in the article. To get an overview you might read the initial version and the English-language sources listed above at Talk:Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The user above was specific about it being a problem with writing - and since their concerns related to pieces of text sourced to German sources I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that it was your writing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And the "early version" you link to was a complete mess stringing together unrelated topics into one big WP:COATRACK. The "airing of grievances" works for Festivus but not for Wikipedia articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Herkus and VolunteerMarek- 1)I was specifically talking about spelling and grammar kinds of stuff. Honestly, I don't care a ton about the issue. I only know about it from here and a bit of listening to the BBC. I'm curious about it just like I'm curious about the delayed elections in Haiti, the further delayed peace talks in Syria, and that guy from Ivory Coast that's being tried in the Hague. In other words, I don't know or care enough about the topic to offer/defend an opinion about whether Glinski or whoever belongs in the article. I just want to be able to read it and not end up more clueless than when I started. 2) I think this article needs to tell us who this Duda guy is. As currently written, the article makes no mention of who he is, when he was elected etc. He just seems to pop onto the scene in middle of refusing to swear in judges or whatever. In typical Wikipedia style, first he's just introduced as President Duda. Only a few lines later are we informed what his first name is. 2a) And who exactly is Jaroslaw Kaczyński? He seems to be the leader of the ruling party but has no position? Is something missing here or is this just a feature of Polish politics that I don't get? Thanks Costatitanica (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You more or less got it - and I'll try to make edits to the article along the lines you suggest it.
 * Here is the informal version: Duda, from PiS, won the Polish presidential election in May, which was a bit of an upset or at least "unexpected" according to official polls. The parliamentary election was in October. In between, during the summer is when the PO, expecting they were going to loose in October tried to appoint some "extra" judges to the Tribunal to retain control over it (and it was/has been PO controlled for awhile now). They did so by passing a blatantly unconstitutional law while they still controlled the parliament. Everyone knew that the law was unconstitutional but in Poland, a law is constitutional until it's officially declared unconstitutional. And who declares a law unconstitutional? Well, gee, it's that very PO-controlled Tribunal. Now, they would probably still have had to declare it unconstitutional, since it was so, pretty blatantly (and in fact they did, recently). But - and here's part of the key - the Tribunal could choose which laws it evaluates, when. So it could put off declaring that unconstitutional law unconstitutional for quite awhile. Which creates a fait accompli as the "extra" judges take their seats and it becomes hard to unwind everything.
 * But then Duda throws a wrench in the works of the plan by refusing to swear in these judges. And this is where PiS makes its counter move. Because Duda not only refuses to swear in the two "extra" judges, but also the other three that PO appointed as part of the same procedure. Because the way he/PiS figures it, the two extra judges and the three replacement judges were all appointed (or as Herkus prefers "elected" - by the PO controlled parliament) as part of the same unconstitutional procedure. This is where the screaming and complaining about "PiS behaving badly" begins. Which is more or less bullshit since the whole thing was a response to PO behaving badly in the first place.
 * So then the election happens and PiS does indeed trounce PO. It becomes the first party in Poland since democracy to get an absolute majority, not just plurality. So it can rule without coalition partners. And the first thing they do is play out the whole Tribunal charade to its natural conclusion. They nullify the summer-PO-unconstiutional-law under which appointments of those judges were made and appoint (somehow I don't think Herkus likes "elected" in this instance, though it's the same procedure) their own five judges. They also pass a law which modifies how the Tribunal works. This is to prevent the Tribunal from declaring their own law unconstitutional (last time PiS was in power the Tribunal - which is a blatantly partisan institution in Poland - pretty much vetoed anything they tried to do, which is why PiS is going after them so strong). One way this works is that now the Tribunal is required to judge laws in order - according to when they were challenged. This means that before the Tribunal can get to declaring any PiS laws unconstitutional it has to work through its docket of laws still passed by PO (some of which go way back).
 * tl:dr. PO tried to make a very cynical political play. But PiS' Duda got elected and messed it up. He and PiS then capitalized on it by playing some cynical politics of their own. PO all of sudden had an outbreak of morals and started screaming about an end to democracy in Poland. How you feel about the whole thing depends on whether you find blatant hypocrisy amusing or disgusting or are taking part in it yourself.
 * Also. Yes, Kaczynski is more or less the leader of PiS, though he has no official government post. His brother, Lech, used to be President of Poland (and mayor of Warsaw) until he died in the Smolensk plane crash, which is one of the big issues in the background. There is a segment of both the political elites and a portion of the population that always vehemently hated the Kaczynski brothers. Now that there is only one left he pretty much gets it double. From where I'm standing, although I'm not a fan of the guy, it looks sort of pathological, like the "birther" people in US. To explain how this came about would require another tl;dr comment.
 * Anyway. It's hard to properly document this story because some editors insist on using this article either to push some POV (Poland is no longer a democracy!) or play out RL political games.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (correction - it wasn't during the summer but in early October, before the election, when PO elected those 5 judges).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "It's hard to properly document this story because some editors insist on using this article either to push some POV..." I couldn't agree more.
 * "(Poland is no longer a democracy!)" Well, it's the European Council's Venice Commission who regards the Polish democracy at peril . HerkusMonte (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

removal of 2 well sourced sections
I thought long and hard where to add 2 very important concurrent developments mentioned in international media: The reorganization of security services on Nov 18 here and the New Media Law from January 2016 here on January 23.

2 days later removed the well sourced sections here and here with the edit summary "off topic". I can see why they would do so, in the strictest sense of the page title Polish Constitutional Court crisis, a title that was changing for a while, I may remind, and included Constuitutional crisis, where the above information would fit no problem. Anyhow, I think this information is linked to the constitutional court crisis. Both are geared at controlling information. The free flow of information in Poland in turn is necessary prerequisite to understand and discuss the constitutional court crisis. I think it is not helpful to the readers of WP to revert (exclude, suppress) these intricately connected facts. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this information is linked to the constitutional court crisis. Both are geared at controlling information - No, this would be a WP:SYNTHESIS. And no, "free flow of information in Poland" (which it keeps flowing) is not necessary to understand the constitutional court crisis. It's too different topics and the only thing they have in common is that the party which lost power doesn't like either one of these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obviously not a matter of WP:SYNTHESIS but of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or rather the PiS doesn't like it. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Herkus, rather it's the fact that this isn't a WP:COATRACK for "everything I don't like about PiS".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * if you had checked the diffs I provided above you'd have seen that the topics are linked in the international press and havent grown on my humble shitpile.
 * It is unfortunate that you are inflexible in your arguments. you basically merely reject ("free flow of information in Poland keeps flowing and is not necessary to understand the constitutional court crisis").- I for one feel less inclined to contribute here if you revert well-sourced edits instead of evaluating and discussing things in a relaxed way.
 * I have cut and pasted well sourced edits by other editors to a different page if I felt they didnt belong. so where, Poland expert Marek, should the 2 sections you deleted go in your opinion?
 * {I will not judge if WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at work as HerkusMonte suggested.) --Wuerzele (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We had a request for rename above. It was closed with this particular name which also implicitly defines the scope of this article. This article should not be used as a POV WP:COATRACK for "everything I don't like about the current Polish government". The the changes to media law are not part of the Polish Constitutional Court crisis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sections arent anything WP:COATRACK for "everything I don't like about the current Polish government", tehy are mere facts, currently missing on WP! you seem to have no distance to the topic, as if someone pees on your leg finding a fact. can you please answer where to put teh 2 well sourced sections that you do not like?--Wuerzele (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am neutral on removing or restoring this, but it should be not lost - I suggest moving this to another article. 2015 in Polish law / 2016 in Polish law could be decent placeholders, for example, through ideally we should consider whether the individuals laws aren't simply notable enough to get a stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks piotrus please read the removed sections they arent just about law. also I found neither 2015 in Polish law nor 2016 in Polish law. please be more specific.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The only way I can be more specific is to say you can create those articles, through again I think it may be better to create articles about individual laws or update more related articles. Perhaps this will be related to the media law, through it doesn't seem updated on pl wiki: pl:Ustawa o radiofonii i telewizji. For the secret services, update History of Polish intelligence services. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks but no thanks. non constructive suggestion as you yourself noticed. so in the meanwhile the reorganization of security services on Nov 18 here and the New Media Law from January 2016 here on January 23 were actually pretty meaningfully placed here but ... it seems editing in Polish matter WP articles is a non-constructive endeavor due to partisan editors. I will take this off my watchlist and recommend to ping editors you reply to.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * German media know better what is Poland, what should the Poles do, what is good and what is wrong. At least 50% of Polish people don't like these German teachings so their POV should be also presented here. Are people in Germany interested in Polish media opinions about German internal problems? I don't think so.Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just seen the edits by VolunteerMarek and neither I understand the removal of big chunks of notable information about the mass protests of citizens *and* the protests of independent bodies like the public schools of law in Poland. This information is highly valuable for the reader, especially a non-Polish one, to understand the scale of this conflict and gain some insight about actual Polish law and institutions. Moreover, I have seen this edit removing another piece of information with a surprising accusation of scare mongering - POV. Dear VounteerMarek, whom do you consider "scaremongers", fellow Wikimedians? The fact is the fact and I have just provided three sources grounding that (and I could have given more but then it would look like a Christmas tree). For the future, I would like to ask to refrain from using such statements. Regarding these sections, I would strongly recommend bringing them back and continuing work on them as these protests did not end... Best, aegis maelstrom δ 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please explain why exactly it is so absolutely necessary to have this qualifier "midnight" in "midnight session" in there. The fact that things moved fast is already clear from the text so this appears like just an attempt to make the whole thing seem more ominous and sinister than it was.
 * As to the protests - not sure what edit you're talking about so I can't really comment on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear, I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary but it does not need to be, as Wikipedia Is Not A Paper Encyclopedia. And, as I described, it is helpful for the reader to learn about such uncommon (and, in my humble opinion, uncivilized and shameful moves). As you can see, this fact grasped the attention both domestically and overseas.
 * The real question is: why are you keeping reverting other users and removing chunks of information while it seems to me that you have not convinced anyone in the discussion? Your repeated reverts in the article's history show your strong dedication to removing these data and I honestly don't know why you think that you can revert other authors again and again. It is not really nice for your fellow volunteers: I used my time to find the sources and enrich the article, and to discuss it now and I would like to see a better explanation than I don't find it important.
 * Finally, I am asking you once more to avoid misleading edit descriptions. It was scare mongering, now you are cherrypicking a single source (I provided three), and this source was a wide-read interview with Andrzej Duda himself, in Washington Post, where he was asked directly about this topic and did not deny. You should be fully aware that there are other ways to discuss sources than reverting altogether with some random complains that you don't like it. Furthermore, you have not and you do not claim that the fact is untrue thus you cannot void a whole edit just because you think that some source should be replaced with some other one.
 * From my editorial perspective, you are voiding my work while not contributing to the article. I am not sure what you are really requesting but as you have cited sources I am adding a forth one and call it a day.
 * Regarding your other reverts: I am writing about the 2 sections that you have been keeping removing. As I can see, you have reverted, and some IP which is being pointed out by  and others in this very topic. Fun fact: on the other hand, you have been reinstalling a dubious claim based on some blog. The key difference is that some sentences and sources were unfavourable for the ruling party and one (the dubious one) is the pro-governmental one.
 * Summing up, I believe that this article could be much better and we could be much more productive editors if you would use this talk page more and stopped making the reverts with controversial claims.
 * Best Wishes and happy editing, aegis maelstrom δ 16:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning this event. I really have no patience for talk with him, especially since I suppose he is paid by the PiS for guarding this article.--Akramm (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, when you get to a point where you believe that someone who disagrees with you on something does so because "they are paid by XYZ", you've pretty much... uh, lost perspective (to put it nicely).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please let me know where we disagreed. I'm doing my best to keep the content neutral.--Akramm (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" is not really a valid reason for inclusion of... well, anything. The key thing here is that describing the signing of the law as happening in a "midnight ceremony" adds no substantial information to the article, it's just trying to make it sound scary. For POV reasons.
 * And I'm sorry, but there was a naming discussion above and it was decided this article is about the Constitutional Court crisis, not other things. In fact, turning this article into a WP:COATRACK for Things I don't like about the current Polish government and its political party would be a violation of Wikipedia policy.
 * And as I've already pointed out (you're sort of repeating which have been said by other accounts previously) it's not a "dubious claim" (what are you exactly referring to?) and yes, it's a blog, but by an expert academic, which makes it a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi VM. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia is a very good reason to include data and the Neutral Point of View is the second one. We all know that the half of the truth is one lie. A political party willing to void the separation of powers in Poland badly wants to depict the situation as a "some conflict between politicians" and ignore other stakeholders like external and domestic bodies and individuals voicing their concerns that, in fact, the spirit (if not the letter) of the law is being broken.
 * I understand why the political party wants to silence these concerns but we are Wikipedia and we should not censor ourselves to bend to this partisan picture. In my honest opinion, the reader will not understand the abovementioned conflict (one of the most important ones in the recent Polish history as its outcomes will shape the future political system of Poland) if you keep on removing this substantial information. Therefore, I will be putting it back there.
 * If I am repeating what has been said before it is only because I find these reasons sound and decisive and you really have not convinced neither me nor the others to your personal opinion. Regarding this "its an expert academic therefore whatever he states in a blog is reliable" - we all know that the reliability does not work like that.
 * Finally, I have honestly no clue why you keep writing that
 * the mass protests against the personal changes in the court
 * the protests of schools of law etc. against the personal changes in the court
 * do not belong to the article about the personal changes to the court. They do belong and I am amazed that you are trying to paint it as a WP:COATRACK. For me it is obvious that the reaction to the Constitutional Court crisis does belong to the Constitutional Court crisis article.
 * Cheers, aegis maelstrom δ 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160126104659/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a3c7d44-b48e-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f.html to http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a3c7d44-b48e-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f.html#axzz3wV4bQQfB
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160110042219/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0390ad5a-b60d-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f.html to http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0390ad5a-b60d-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f.html#axzz3wgvpbuNs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Breaking news, 9 March 2016
I've just found this article 85.193.217.151 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Scandal or controversy?
The article is currently in Category:Political scandals in Poland, which I don't think is correct. I think it should be in the parent category, Category:Controversies in Poland. Scandals have a more negative controversy - if there's a scandal, nearly everyone thinks something is wrong. This is not as clear, and I think it doesn't reach the level of scandal, at least, it is not universally labelled as such. A related thought: coup d'etats are controversial, but they are rarely scandals. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus absolutely not a scandal.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A governmental breach of the constitution (as ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal), the European Council's Venice Commission emphasizing "as long as the Constitutional Tribunal cannot carry out its work in an efficient manner, not only is the rule of law in danger, but so is democracy and human rights" and you don't think this should be called a scandal? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not a "scandal" unless you're going to put "anything I disagree with" in the category "scandal". It's a controversy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If only you would realize that it's the "European Commission for Democracy through Law" (Venice Commission), the vast majority of the European Parliament and the Tribunal itself who disagree. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they actually do not. Sources for "scandal" please. Also sources for "midnight ceremony" please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources for "Court crisis" please, nobody out there calls this a court crisis. Regarding the "midmight ceremony" Wall Street Journal: "... most of who were hastily sworn in soon after midnight." Reuters: "Duda swore in several of the new judges after Wednesday's vote in a midnight ceremony" and the Venice Commission : "During the night of 2 December 2015, the President of Poland accepted the oath of the newly-elected judges."(p. 18) and further "While the President by then had not taken the oath of the October judges for nearly two months, referring to doubts as to the validity of their election, it seems that the President had no doubts as to the validity of the election of the December judges, even though Article 137a, providing for the election of successors to all judges whose mandate ended in 2015, was being challenged in a case pending before the Tribunal. Without waiting for the judgment of the Tribunal, the President immediately accepted their oaths." (p.19) Which makes it pretty clear that the haste is remarkable. Describing this as "the next day" is a pretty obvious attempt to play down and whitewash this problematic aspect. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "scandal", let me quote Patryk Jaki, the deputy justice minister: "What is happening … if it happens, is an absolute scandal", referring to the Tribunal's verdict. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I'm sure you can find some Republican calling Obama a "Muslim" or a "terrorist" or whatever. That doesn't mean we add Category:Terrorist to Obama's article. And don't you have the two sides mixed up here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems sufficient to reference a sentence that such and such called those events a scandal. But it does not look like it is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with VM here. Scandals are pretty much universally accepted as such (through that doesn't appear to be part of the definition, see scandal). I stand by my assessment that a controversy category is more neutral, and the scandal one shouldn't be used unless there is a stronger consensus for it. Also, the first stage for getting the word scandal into the article should be to provide reliable sources. Which reliable newspapers and such are using this word? (Btw, I am fine with the current word crisis in the title, through changing it to controversy would also be acceptable). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole article ignores WP:COMMONNAME, nobody calls this a "court crisis", it's called Constitutional crisis by pretty much every single source. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please show a quantitative comparison to back up your claim? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just take a look at the references we use. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Lies, lies, lies
http://www.polskieradio.pl/5/3/Artykul/1552607,Spor-o-Trybunal-Konstytucyjny-w-Sejmie-Poslowie-wybrali-pieciu-sedziow Some editors misinforms using biased sources since January. Three of them replaced judges whose nine-year terms had expired The election took place 8 października (October), but three judges finished their term 6 listopada (November) the other two 2 i 8 grudnia (December). Please stop your lies!.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Replying to Jean Asselborn
Who is Jean Asselborn and what is his/her opinion?Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jean Asselborn is the minister of Foreign and European affairs of Luxemburg with Luxemburg holding the Presidency of the EU. He "called on the European Commission and Parliament to act, saying that sanctions may have to be imposed on Poland if it fails to change course. “The limitation of the rights of the constitutional court is not acceptable,” he told Reuters." And while the pro-PiS criticism of Asselborn was kept, his own statement was deleted. That happens when WP:IDONTLIKEIT rules. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Assesment vs. Warning" and other wording issues
I would like to point out that the terminology used to describe the "rule-of-law" procedure and the steps involved in it should be in-line with how the EU Commission describes the process. Unfortunately, using populist terminology that's being thrown around by newspapers, can be misleading. So far, I noticed that left-leaning news outlets have described the process using more extreme wording, such as: "warning" and "investigation". While on the other hand, conservative news outlets used softer terms, such as: "opinion" and "inquiry". Thus, to avoild an ideological battle, we should simply use the terminology about the process that the EU Commission itself is using. A really good example of this is when after the EU Commission sent its assessment to the Polish government, the media started to call it an "ultimatum" — a term strongly disputed by the vice-commissioner Timmermans. --E-960 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just one more item — if you were going to use a primary source (newspapers) at face value, given that it is common knowledge that news outlets have left/right leanings, then I will recommend that the section is rephrased to include a statement on how each side describes the matter, example: The Guardian newspaper reported that the EU sent a warning to Poland, while the the Politico website reported that the EU provided its opinion on the situation. So, if you don't use technical terminology, but stay with populist newspaper jargon, then you will need to include statements on who said what, and provide the other view point on the matter as well. --E-960 (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Links to primary sources on websites of Constitutional Tribunal, Venice Commission and EU Commission
I would add following links to the press releases (and judgements) of the Constitutional Tribunal itself (in English):
 * Decision of 03.12.2015 in case K 34/15 on Act of 25.06.2015
 * Decision of 09.12.2015 in case K 35/15 on Act of 19.11.2015
 * Decision of 07.01.2016 in case U 8/15 on Sejm's resolutions of 25.11.2015 (invalidating the election of 5 judges on 08.10.2015) and of 02.12.2015 (new election of 5 judges)
 * Decision of 09.03.2016 in case K 47/15 on Act of 22.12.2015 (corrected Bancki (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Decision of 11.08.2016 in case K 39/16 on Act of 22.07.2016
 * Decision of 07.11.2016 in case K 44/16 on Act of 22.07.2016 (art. 16 : how the Tribunal proposes candidates for its (Vice-)President) (addition---Bancki (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

The Venice Commission issued two opinions on the matter: (see also Opninion of 11.12.2017 doc. nr. CDL-AD(2017)031 "on the Draft Act amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary; on the Draft Act amending the Act on the Supreme Court, proposed by the President of Poland, and on the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bancki (talk • contribs) 08:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * on the Act of 22.12.2015: Opinion of 11.03.2016 doc. nr. CDL-AD(2016)001 "on amendments to the Act of 25 June 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland"
 * on the Act of 22.07.2016: Opinion of 14.10.2016 doc. nr. CDL-AD(2016)026 "on the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal"

The Venice Commission also published English translations of the acts of parliament:
 * translations of the acts of 25.06.2015, 19.11.2015 and 22.12.2015: doc. nr. CDL-REF(2016)009
 * translation of the act of 22.07.2016: doc. nr. CDL-REF(2016)052Bancki (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The European Commission issued :
 * Opinion of 01.06.2016 concerning the rule of law in Poland (press release)
 * Recommendation of 27.07.2016 regarding the rule of law in Poland : doc. nr. C(2016) 5703 final = (EU) 2016/1374 (Official Journal, nr. L 217 of 12.08.2016, p. 53) (press release)
 * Recommendation of 21.12.2016 regarding the rule of law in Poland : doc. nr. C(2016) 8950 final = (EU) 2017/146 (Official Journal, nr. L 22 of 27.01.2017, p. 65) (press release)
 * Recommendation of 26.07.2017 regarding the rule of law in Poland : doc. nr. C(2017) 5320 final = (EU) 2017/1520 (Official Journal, nr. L 228 of 02.09.2017, p. 19) (press release)--updated--Bancki (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The European Parliament adopted three resolutions:
 * of 13.04.2016 'on the situation in Poland' nr. 2015/3031(RSP) (votes)
 * of 14.09.2016 'on the recent developments in Poland and their impact on fundamental rights as laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union' nr. 2016/2774(RSP) (votes)Bancki (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * of 15.11.2017 'on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland' nr. 2017/2931(RSP) (votes)Bancki (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent links. But integrating them could make this big article even bigger. This sort of info hidden in a chronological list of "reactions" might not be so clear to the reader. It could be time to WP:SPLIT off into a wider article covering the various European reactions (E Parliament, E Commission, E Court of Justice) to the 13 laws modifying the Polish judicial structure over 2015–2017. The WP:NAME of the article with the wider topic would probably have to be descriptive. I don't have any good proposals for a name... In terms of dates, as of Feb 2018, the series of events is not finished, so putting 2015–2018 in the title might still require changes in 2019, 2020, or later. Boud (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

prohibition of the presumption of correctness
In October 2015 Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO) party appointed five Constitutional Tribunal judges. 3 of them to replace judges whose terms were to expire on November 6, 2 of them to replace judges whose terms were to expire in December. On October 25, the Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) party won parliamentary election. Polish constitution require that Constitutional Tribunal judges are appointed by parliament which is in power on the date when new Constitutional Tribunal judge can be appointed. . This was not the case, because it was unknown in October 2015 when after election new parliament and government will took power. It was possible that it would happen before November 6. Article 7 of Polish constitution introduces prohibition of the presumption of correctness So, maybe all five judges were appointed in October 2015 incorrectly? 31.0.67.168 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Kris

Relation between this article and the main one
The relation between this article, Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing) versus Polish constitutional crisis needs to be sorted out. The titles suggest that this one is more specifically on the Constitutional Tribunal itself, while the broader article is about the rule of law and democratic backsliding more broadly. Is this the intention? If yes, then both articles still have ongoing status. Boud (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more in pl:Kryzys wokół Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w Polsce: the TK declared Parliament's motion to be invalid. A pair of update draft laws of parliament is described in English - approved by the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights on 16 July (yesterday). Boud (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)