Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló

Is Jobbik a neo-Nazi or fascist party?

Jobbik is routinely described as a fascistic organization by global media, often compared to the Nazis, described as close to neo-Nazis, or directly called neo-Nazi:

• "Jobbik, an organization that follows racist and irredentist traditions..." (The Guardian, 22 March 2006)
• "The far-right Jobbik party plans to hold an induction ceremony Saturday for the first members of the Magyar Garda, or Hungarian Guard, whose red-and-white striped coat of arms is reminiscent of the one used by Hungary's pro-Nazi Arrow Cross regime during World War II... Jobbik, known for its anti-Semitic and neo-Fascist rhetoric, is a fringe far-right political party... Most recently, supporters of Jobbik disrupted a gay rights rally in the capital in July, throwing eggs and bottles and injuring several participants..." (AFP, 24 August 2007)
• "Neo-Nazi Jobbik group due to inaugurate Hungarian Guard outside presidential offices 1300g; black uniforms and insignia reminiscent of pro-Nazi Arrow Cross regime during World War II have sparked protests by international Jewish groups." (Hungarian paper Nepszava, via the BBC, 25 August 2007)
• "Representatives of civil organizations condemned discrimination, racism and the spreading of neo-Nazi ideology at a demonstration commemorating the 68th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, in central Budapest on Saturday, MTI News Agency reported. 'The evil ideology of Nazism is now gaining ground once again,' Vilmos Hanti, head of the Hungarian Anti-Fascist Federation, which organized the event, said reporters. Hanti noted that the extreme-right Jobbik party's paramilitary Hungarian Guard, its members sporting black uniforms with symbols of Hungary's WWII Nazi party, had been formed in Budapest exactly a week ago." (Xinhua General News Service, 1 September 2007)
• "Since its formation, the leaders of the Jobbik Movement for a Better Hungary have proven on various occasions that Nazi (Arrow-Cross, Fascist) ideologies are not far from them, and their views are close to former Nazi and current neo-Nazi ideologies, moreover, they are equal to them. The leaders and members of the Jobbik Movement for Hungary year after year perturb the public religious events of the Hungarian Jewish community, they stigmatize - and sometimes attack - the homosexuals' pride parade, and aim at acquiring popularity, and humiliating our fellow Roma citizens by recalling the notion of 'Gipsy crime.'" (Hungarian paper Nepszabadsag, commentary by Istvan Hell, via the BBC)
• "Like her party, Dr Morvai denies being anti-Semitic, homophobic, or racist in any way, dismissing such criticisms as the "favourite topics of an "ignorant and misled European Union. But magazines supportive of her party's aims openly play on such fears. One publication available at the venue of a Jobbik press conference last week contained an item entitled "Who decides? on Hungary's future. The non-Jobbik options were either a Jew with side-curls, a pair of naked homosexuals, or a dark-skinned thug." (The Sunday Telegraph, 24 May 2009)
• "The Guard had significantly contributed to making Jobbik widely known, but it then split into two: the so-called 'guarding' wing that openly allies itself with neo-Nazi and Hungarist [Hungarian fascists in 1930s and 1940s] organizations became independent and is causing awkward moments to the 'parent party.'" (Hungarian paper Nepszabadsag, via the BBC, 27 May 2009)
• "At Jobbik one should not expect difficult ideological explanations. When they tried to present Gabor Vona with the openly neo-Nazi Kuruc.info he said that he sometimes disapproves of the website's articles (he was talking about a Hitler poem for Mother's Day!), but he forgot to mention that from the Jobbik.net portal there is a direct link to neo-Nazi websites." (Hungarian paper Nepszabadsag, via the BBC, 21 May 2009)
• "...the nationalist extremist Magyar Garda march in the streets of Hungary in black uniforms with symbols reminiscent of the wartime fascist Arrow Cross, and the racist and anti-Semitic Jobbik party garnered 15 percent of the votes in the recent elections for the European Parliament..." (The Jerusalem Post, 23 June 2009)
• "The Hungarian Guard was founded in August 2007 at the initiative of Gabor Vona, head of the Jobbik Party. (The word has a double meaning: "better" or "on the right.") Guard members wore black uniforms and insignia resembling those displayed by the murderous Arrow Cross storm troopers during the Nazi era in 1944. They staged military-style marches through Gypsy enclaves, spreading fear and intimidation. Violence often followed their appearances. After a lengthy legal process, the courts last month outlawed the Guard, labeling it a threat to democracy and public safety." (Sunday Telegram, 17 August 2009)
• "In Hungary, the ruling centre-left Socialists have collapsed in the polls, making the leading opposition the ultra-right-wing Jobbik party, which is linked to a Nazi-style militia group, the Hungarian Guard." (Globe and Mail, 4 November 2009)
• "During a TV interview, Jobbik's prime ministerial candidate and party leader, Gabor Vona, was asked whether his party supported an upcoming major neo-Nazi rally in Budapest. He answered: 'if you are so interested in Jewish issues I suggest you move to Israel.'" (Targeted News, 12 April 2010)

     ...etc. 2010, 2011, 2012...

• An article called "Hungarian court hearing starts in case of party's neo-Nazi branding," published on the Hungarian paper Nepszabadsag, presents the views of a series of historians. Historian Laszlo Karsai was taken to court by Jobbik for calling it neo-Nazi. "According to historian Peter Bencsik, it is a generic term that does not have a strict definition: it means the following of the basic principles of Nazism, or part thereof. Numerous far-right trends come under this category. Jobbik amply fulfills the criteria to be listed in this category with its anti-Semitism, lebensraum vision, paramilitary units, and hate speech... [that] Jobbik keeps stigmatizing organizations and ethnic groups, however, it is still not brought to court - historian Tibor Hajdu notes, who also holds the view that Jobbik is a neo-Nazi party. This does not mean that Jobbik is identical in everything to the former Nazis and Arrow-Cross members... Randolph L. Braham, internationally renowned holocaust researcher, also believes that Jobbik shows characteristics typical of national socialists. Publicist Rudolf Ungvary also considers it a well-founded opinion that Jobbik is a neo-Nazi party... It is beyond doubt that today not even a wafer-thin wall separates Jobbik from the world view and typical communication messages of organizations operating as neo-Nazi formations - theologian and university lecturer Tamas Majsai states. Rudolf Paksa, who has written a book on the history of the far right in Hungary, holds a different view. In his opinion, it can be safely claimed that Jobbik is an anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, and chauvinistic party -- but as it happens it is not national socialist. He finds the neo-Nazi labeling of Jobbik to be a politically motivated journalistic phrase and simple exaggeration. Notwithstanding, Paksa finds it outrageous to take someone to court over this kind of labeling. Karsai's legal representatives enclosed a lengthy but by no means exhaus tive list of Jobbik's racist and extremist manifestations with the defense. Peter Nagy calls attention to the fact that, in spite of the debates on definitions, in a significant section of the Hungarian and international media, the neo-Nazi nature of Jobbik is an obvious and trivial fact that is also present in the scientific community's opinion." (From the BBC, 11 January 2013)
• "Consider these words: 'It is high time to assess how many [members of parliament] and government members are of Jewish origin and who present a national security threat.' Do you think those evil thoughts were expressed during Adolf Hitler's Third Reich? Marton Gyongyosi of the neo-Nazi Jobbik Party of Hungary spoke those words last fall." (Washington Post, editorial, 19 January 2013)
• "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the vote by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) to approve the nomination of Tamas Gaudi-Nagy, a member of the neo-Nazi Jobbik party of Hungary, to its Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights." (States News Service, 24 January 2013)

I'm not sure what's "dubious" about Jobbik's association with fascism, and describing the party accurately here isn't a slander against Szaniszló. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Jobbik is surely a far-right party, but calling it "fascist" is POV. The fact that some sources call it "fascist" or "neo-nazi" does not mean that it is an unquestionable fact. Even many of your sources just try to imply this and there are only few that clearly state this as a fact. Jobbik is a legal party in Hungary and its MPs also sit in the European Parliament. Even if you criticize Hungary, it is highly dubious whether a clearly fascist party would be allowed in the European Parliament. So let's just call it "far-right" or "radical nationalist", per WP:NPOV, and let's refrain from radical judgments, even if there are sources which make such judgments. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi KœrteFa, sorry, I didn't mean to "criticize Hungary," and I have nothing against the country: on the contrary, I'm a fan. Fascism and Nazism are simply phenomena (not describing Hungary as a country), and as the professors quoted above suggest, those phenomena involve characteristics like "anti-Semitism, lebensraum vision, paramilitary units, hate speech... stigmatizing organizations and ethnic groups... " etc. Right now, I see that you find the "neutral" terminology to be "far-right" or "radical nationalist," however I've read over dozens and dozens of sources, and quoted many above here, to demonstrate that mainstream media refer to Jobbik as fascistic or neo-Nazi. So unless we can find a scholarly or media consensus to the contrary, we should stick to the definitions given. Because of the sources given, I'll write "neo-Nazi" for now, but if we can find more that instead write simply fascist or explicitly state that Jobbik is neither, that might present a convincing case. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For example, according to the Hungarian Court, Jobbik is not neo-nazi [1] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What is it?

So, if I got it right, this whole article is about a prize which was given to someone, who was latter asked to give it back? Ltbuni (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And what have the two others got to do with Ferenc Szaniszló? Were they given the same award? I don't get it! Ltbuni (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ltbuni, the text of this article states, "Balog, a minister of conservative premier Viktor Orbán's Fidesz-Civic Union government, also gave awards to archeologist Kornél Bakay and to János Petrás, a singer in the rock band Kárpátia."

If you read the sources provided for that statement, one states, "Other recipients included the musician, Janos Petras, lead singer of the group Karpatia, which is regarded as the house band of Hungary’s extreme right-wing and virulently anti-Semitic Jobbik party, and the archaeologist Kornel Bakay, who has claimed Jesus Christ was Hungarian and that the Jews were slave traders during the Middle Ages," and the other states, "Recently the government awarded archaeologist Kornel Bakay a medal of merit. Bakay had caused a stir with anti-Semitic statements, e.g., with his claim that Jews had organized the slave trade in the Middle Ages. The Golden Cross of Merit was awarded to the singer of the rock band Kárpátia, Petrás János. The group is close to the neo-fascist party Jobbik and composed the anthem for Jobbik’s paramilitary wing, the Hungarian Guard. In its songs the band glorifies the “immaculate nation” and calls for expanding the borders of Hungary."

Let me know if you are still confused after reading the article again. Also, if you're able to find other media coverage of Ferenc Szaniszló, let me know, or add material as you deem fit. -Darouet (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I also fail to see why Kornél Bakay and János Petrás are relevant for *this* particular article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I think the international media is referencing Bakay and Petrás when writing about Szaniszló because they don't view the awards to controversial and extreme right-wing individuals as disconnected, but rather as a reflection of policy or politics on the part of the Fidesz government. While those connections may be obvious to journalists or to people following politics regularly in Europe, it may not be to some readers. I don't think the logic needs to be articulated more clearly, but if you have proposed text (and it still reflects sources) please offer it: that'd be great! -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So the only factual connection (besides subjective interpretations about why did they get the awards) is that they also got awards in the same time. Then, I still don't get it. This article is about Ferenc Szaniszló and neither about the current Hungarian government, nor about the given awards. Hence, those guys don't have to be in this article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

On the balance of biographical information

Ferenc Szaniszló is certainly not being slandered here, but the great weight of international attention he's received comes via his recent award. This article reflects that (I had to dig for other material), but I'd really appreciate any positive efforts to bring more material on Szaniszló aimed at improving this article. -Darouet (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Some proposals:

1. Instead of the "Roma minority" map, it would be more appropriate to insert a picture of Mr. Szaniszló.

2. Mr. Balogh apologized, and sent letter to the US-Ambassador, in which he drew attention to that even in the US there are problems sometimes with the nomination - see the case of Samira Ibrahim. Maybe You should add this as well, if You have added the US and Israeli reactions to the award.

3. If half of the article deals with the award-giving, Why don't You add some other recipients, who possibly have their own page on the Wikipedia? What kind of awards were they given? I think, Wikipedia has a long list of articles dealing with different kind of decorations, and medals - the link

3.1. Prof Bakay was an archeologist, I think he was prized because of this issue, and not in honor of his views on Jesus. Why was he given it?

3.2. I don't know anything about Karpathia, but I am pretty sure that the singer was not awarded because Jobbik is using his song as an anthemn - what was the explanation of his decoration? Are You sure that in these two latter cases political sympathies led the govmnt?

--Ltbuni (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ltbuni, I like some of your proposals, for instance adding a picture of Mr. Szaniszlo; actually I copied and edited one for this article, but didn't add it in the end because I couldn't find a fair use rationale (I also searched flickr and couldn't find a free use image). I think the image of Roma population densities are justified given Szaniszló's outspoken views on them, but an image of the man himself is more important. If you can find a good fair use rationale, I'll try it with the image I have, or you could add it yourself.

It was Szaniszló's award that generated the most international media attention, and I wrote the article accordingly. Given that attention, Szaniszló is an important figure, and hence my article (the articles are about him, and mention the others: I've copied that format).

I'm not going to argue with you about Bakay and Karpathia on behalf of the world's journalists: if you want to question their decisions after reading their articles, you can write them, or better yet, find other sources that make your point. It's not reasonable to have a discussion of this outside a discussion of sources, as I can see no way of resolving a dispute in that case. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A picture of Mr. Szaniszló would indeed be good, but I am not against displaying the Roma minority map either. Mr. Balogh's apoligy and his letter to the US-Ambassador should indeed be mentioned. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to write, that "I think, Wikipedia has a long list of articles dealing with different kind of decorations, and medals" - the link did not work, maybe this time:

--Ltbuni (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

soapbox

I have removed some infos about archaeologist Kornel Bakay and singer of Karpatia band because wiki is not a soapbox. If Bakay's story needs to be mentioned on wiki we will have to use Bakay's own article.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fakirbakir, this was discussed above, though I suppose there's nothing wrong with having a section here dedicated to the issue. After seeing your note I decided to return to Wikipedia's guidelines against soapboxing, and found that those guidelines forbid the following:

1. Advocacy, propaganda or recruitment,
2. Opinion pieces,
3. Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person (quoted in full),
4. Self-promotion, or
5. Advertising.

Obviously this article is not advocacy, an opinion piece, self promotion, or advertising. While the article isn't promoting gossip or written to attack Szaniszlo, the highly publicized award and his anti-semitic and anti-roma comments, written about by major papers all over the world, constitute the great bulk of material written about him (that I've found). They're also significant, as defined by the coverage and subsequent commentaries. Do you have other ideas about soapboxing, or this article? -Darouet (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, then let's call it POV pushing... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The POV guidelines state, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." What sources do you believe are here over-represented, or under-represented? It sounds like a good start would be to collate a list of sources - that will require research and work - and note the position and content of each, relating to Ferenc Szaniszló. So far you haven't made an argument about fairness, neutrality, proportionality, or bias relating to reliable sources, but have only deleted sources and content. I might be wrong but it does seem as though your argument so far is not with me but with the sources.-Darouet (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the problem is with the *selection* of the information to be presented. It is not hard to write an unbalanced article just by putting facts next to each other. For example, talking about Bakay and Petrás in this article would be such a thing. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Are the sources referenced in this article also unbalanced, then? -Darouet (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that. They have a broader scope than this article, as they are also talking about other recipients of state awards. However, this article is only dedicated to Ferenc Szaniszló. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This POV pushing (as Koertefa mentioned it above) is also a kind of "propaganda", a negative propaganda towards Hungarian events. It is soapboxing. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all - sorry I'm quite busy at the moment. I see Ltbuni's addition of material on the U.S. award in Egypt as far more tendentious (that's a connection drawn by the Hungarian government, whereas the Bakay / Karpatia connection was drawn by the international media), however I don't have time to argue right now, and in any event readers will survive, and can make up their own minds. Sorry will come back not long from now. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting outside feedback: should this article mention awards given concurrently to others?

Newspapers describing Szaniszló's receipt of a prestigious journalism award, and its subsequent return, have mentioned that awards were also given to other far-right figures in Hungary. Is mention of those awards outside the scope of this article? -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would think so. The awards given to others have nothing to do with this person. United States Man (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the mention of those awards is not outside the scope of this article; the issues regarding the awards as it relates to Szaniszló is remarkable, and the awards section (as currently composed) is properly referenced too. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be quietly written to insinuate some false similarity between Ferenc Szaniszló and the Jobbik party. If some editors think that listing other recipients alongside Szaniszló is somehow telling, I would recommend finding the appropriate article to write a section about the award and link to it from here. That way, the audience can see if there's a pattern of who has been nominated for this award. The plan to include other recipients' names on this article is dishonest and unnecessary. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Five of the eight non-Hungarian (international) news articles cited in this article mention Jobbik when covering Szaniszló's award, and one Hungarian source does as well (Jobbik's president declares the episode a moral victory for Szaniszló). If most journalists on earth (for obvious reasons) deem the coincident awards to be relevant then they merit inclusion, even if editors found other sources arguing that Szaniszló has nothing to do with Jobbik. So far, nobody has come forward with those sources. -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me that those international media outlets are all copying the same source material. I don't know anything about this journalism award. If it's anything like the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, it's a highly political award each President gives to their favorite cranks and partisans, while claiming the award recipients had something to do with freedom, which is often doubtful. Knowing that, the reader can assess why certain people are given the award during certain administrations. If this journalism award is the same, then let's say that the Jobbik party awarded their favorites which included Szaniszló. If the history of this journalism award is not the same, then I would encourage editors to not try to paint all recipients and Jobbik with the same brush, which seems to be the mood behind this RfC. I think Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to divine the logic of behind-closed-doors political horsetrading. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your characterization of the award - as highly political among other things - is supported by accounts in the international press, and I tend to agree with you. Luckily, it wasn't Jobbik that gave Szaniszló the award, because Jobbik isn't in power in Hungary. We don't really have to figure out the logic of the awards however, though some media sources have done so. More important is to merely report what they have when writing about Szaniszló's award: that it was received concurrently with awards given to other far-right political figures in Hungary. The connections don't require divination, because they were established when the Hungarian government gave the awards simultaneously and when the international press subsequently wrote a whole series of articles on the subject. -Darouet (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This was the text I originally wrote when creating this article, now contested:

"Balog, a minister of conservative premier Viktor Orbán's Fidesz-Civic Union government, also gave awards to archeologist Kornél Bakay and to János Petrás, a singer in the rock band Kárpátia.[2][3] Bakay has maintained that Jesus was Hungarian and that the Jews were responsible for the slave trade during the Middle Ages; Petrás composed the anthem for the paramilitary wing of Hungary's far-right Jobbik Party, often described as a neo-Nazi organization by international media and Hungarian historians."[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

I'm sorry that one of the articles is not available except by subscription.-Darouet (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

So, if you don't think that the Le Monde article is an editorial publication (and not news), then what is it? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Norden, it's a news article. -Darouet (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It's a policy statement of a Le Monde journalist. "Mais où était donc, ces dernières années, le ministre hongrois des ressources humaines (un super-ministère incluant la culture) pour soi-disant ignorer à quel point le journaliste Ferenc Szaniszlo était peu fréquentable ?" It is not a news article, so can not be considered a reliable source. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is their editorial section: http://www.lemonde.fr/editoriaux/. -Darouet (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Le Monde is a lefty rag. I certainly wouldn't use it as a source. I think my point here is that while I recognize that "news" sources are talking about his award in the backdrop of everyone else's awards, I don't think that should drive what the article says. Sure, put in a sentence that explains that the other awardees protested Szaniszló getting the same award. I caution away from borrowing the so-called journalists narrative and inference, in keeping with WP:NPOV.Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke comment, right? Le Monde is one of the two French newspapers of record, and not a source to dismiss out of hand. I think you were joking, but I'm not sure, since it's the Internet, and you never know. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Governent of Canada, there is not persecution against Gypsyes in Hungary. [11], [12], [13]. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is what reliable sources say about discrimination against the Roma in Hungary:

• "Persecuted in Hungary for their Roma heritage, Joszef and his mother moved constantly, sometimes sleeping in train stations, before coming to Canada in 2011 as refugees, eventually settling in Mississauga." Published in the news section of the Toronto Star on 9th April 2013.

• The report of the Canada Border Services Agency is more reliable than a lie of a Gypsy family who tried to settle in Canada referring to the "Hungarian discrimination against them". [14] --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• "[Klaus Bade, a professor at the University of Osnabrückand an expert on European migration] called on the EU to tackle "push" factors such as the discrimination against Roma in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary which makes Germany appear a haven of tolerance." Published in the news section of the Times of London on 11 February 2013.

• This sentence does not contain specific details, but only generalization. For example I don't think that France is a racist and anti-Semitic country just because some Jews were murdered in 2012 and expelled lot of Roma people to home, Romania. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Despite documented discrimination against Roma in Europe, a major ethnic group seeking asylum in Canada, Ottawa has designated all but two EU member states safe for refugees." Published in the news section of the Toronto Star on 14 December 2012.

• I don't see Hungary in this news. As I said, Canada already stated that Hungary is a safe country for the Romani people and for the Gypsies there is no reason to settle in Canada referring to to the Hungarian racism. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• "In eastern European countries that are EU members, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, accounts are rife of widespread discrimination against Roma, including physical attacks." Published in the news section of The Guardian the 30 July 2010.

• "Including physical attacks." There is again a lack of concrete. If a Hungarian attacks a Roma he does not necessarily make this because of the Roma's origin. On the other hand there are lot of crimes that gypsies committed against Hungarians or other non-Romani people (Olaszliszka lynching, Veszprém stabbing, murder of Kata Bándy in 2012 etc.). Based on your logic there is also anti-Hungarian sentiment by the Romani people in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Mr Szaniszlo’s anti-Semitic outbursts and his detrimental remarks about the country’s ostracised Roma minority were made on air in 2011 and prompted Hungary’s state-controlled media watchdog body to fine the channel." Published in the news section of The Independent on 17 March 2013.

• These anti-Roma sentences shall not constitute the persecution of the Roma community. Echo TV is not a state-controlled media, so The Independent is wrong, therefore is not an authentic source. This article is full of sliding, half-truths, political opinion and generalization. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Far-right parties from Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria won seats in the European Parliament in June, and extremist attacks on Roma have intensified, with one Hungarian gang suspected of killing six Gypsies and injuring several more in the last year alone. In Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, well organised nationalist groups regularly march through Roma districts to protest at what they call a wave of Gypsy crime , inflaming tension that has been intensified by the impact of the economic crisis on poor white families." Published in the news section of The Irish Times on 10 September, 2009.

• The Hungarian serial killing is an isolated case where the perpetrators were arrested. The National Socialist Underground also committed murders against the Turkish minority, but it not can be said that "the Turks are generally persecuted in Germany". For the Jobbik: according to the Hungarian Court, Jobbik is not a Neo-Nazi or fascist party. Or do you think the Hungarian court is also a racist and anti-Semitic? [15] --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There are dozens of articles on this subject that are easily accessible, and the Roma are clearly a persecuted minority in Hungary. To write this is simply a statement of fact that benefits the readers of this encyclopedia, especially those in Hungary. Norden1990 deleted most of the references listed above from the article, calling them part of a "witch-hunt" against Hungary. There is no witch hunt organized against Hungary on wikipedia, and these references should be restored. -Darouet (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of political news, where it is difficult to find out the truth content... especially from abroad. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)