Talk:Fidesz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Opening heading[edit]

Isn't the building in "Szentkirályi u. 18." their new office building? See Google Adam78 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Liberal conservative[edit]

FIDESZ-MPP = Liberal Conservative? My foot! Nationalists...without a doubt.Lightning-Feather 02:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, try to tell a Fidesz supporter that the party is liberal conservative. Wait for the response. Then reconsider this classification. Also, mind recent proposals in the campaign of extending the budget, etc. --Sicboy 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if they're a conservative party, then why they call the Christian Democrat and conservative MIÉP and JOBBIK far-right?

Because they are a conservative party and MIÉP-Jobbik is far-right. I do not understand the contradiction

Why was Orbán Viktor the vice president of the Liberal International?

Because he was the vice president of the Liberal International. Now he is vice president, or anything of the EPP (European conservative alliance)

Why they never really accepted that they're a conservative party, whilst every other party decided its political position?

Huh!?

Why they sweared the Christian people earlier in the parliament?

????

Why they messed up the centre-right FKGP?

FKGP, well it was a strange party, with a clown as president, now a) FKGP messed up by itself, b) Fidesz helped FKGP to commit suicide, but why is this an argument for Fidesz being liberal!?

Why they "speak conservative and do liberal"? Why? Why? Why?

I think they speak conservative/social and do conservative/social. They "did liberal" in 1999 the last time. --Sicboy 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see you are Fidesz supporter, I'm a Third Way supporter. You'll not agree with me, I'll not agree with you. Always that old right-wing argue. I give up, and I accept that this is the Wiki-objectiveness. I'm just a Guest. Goodbye, my brother!

I'm not a supporter of anyone, please read my words again, I believe I am objective. I think that nobody thinks Fidesz is liberal in Hungary, nor fideszians, nor mszpians, nor supporters of the Two-Tailed Dog Party. And that is a reason. Good night --Sicboy 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to characterize the rhetoric of the party as increasingly nationalist and populist. The amount of room to maneuver politically in a Hungary within the EU is limited, and the policies of the MSZP-SZDSZ coalition have consistantly included substantial free-market reforms and privitisation, so that a clear left-right, or socialized vs. market orientation division is not to be found between the parties or possible coalitions. Indeed, a great deal of FIDESZ's campaigning against the MSZP-SZDSZ has been against further privitasition of "peoples' property" and against a "cosmopolitan" (non-nationalist) world view.

I would remove the party from the liberal-conservative. A party whit that kind of "label" would support the privatization of hospitals and the Fidesz opossed that. I think we just cannot put the Fidesz and the G17+ in Serbia(for example) in the same category. That one is socialy conservative and economicaly liberal so it's a liberal-conservative party. I think the Fidesz is neither socialy neither economicaly liberal. HunTheGoaT 18:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fidesz is not liberal conservative, neither nationalist (as the left-wing propaganda tries to tell us). I think Fidesz is much more closer to social democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonknights (talkcontribs) 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fidesz[edit]

To the author: The last sentence doesn't make sense. I suggest "In 2005 FIDESZ and the KDNP formed a coalition." or something like that. To Sicboy: this is not a campaign site. Let cool heads prevail. /And NPOW/

milfor

sure about NPOV, but Fidesz is neither thought to be liberal, nor do they call themselves that. They are now members in the European People's Party etc. Fidesz supporters don't think they are liberal, and opponents don't think that either. They can be classified as christian-democratic, with attention to social and national issues, or sth like that. About the last sentence: the list running on the 2006 elections will be called "Fidesz-KDNP", that means, they count as election alliance (thus needing the 10% margin, etc.), this is a formal issue. --Sicboy 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
About Fidesz, what does the word actually mean? --Oddeivind (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it's just an acronym from Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége.--Miacek (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Date for the conservative turn[edit]

It was written in the article:

In 1993 Fidesz realigned its political position into a conservative line where it is now,

You corrected:

After its poor result in the 1994 election, Fidesz started to realign its political position towards a conservative line, where it is now.

According to the history of Fidesz on its website, the conservative turn began not in 1994, but as early as in 1992. Here's a sentence from the text:

On a FIDESZ rally held in October (*), Viktor Orbán stated that the country may only be managed in a secure manner by a government made up of the forces of the civic centre.

(*): it turns out from the next sentence that the October of 1992 is meant.

So I'll revert this change of yours, unless you show me I'm wrong.

Adam78 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

I think the 1994 election results are relevant, because this was the shock that made the transformation of the party possible. You are right that there was a faction in Fidesz which had always argued for a more neutral stance between the Liberals and the Conservatives. However, this faction was not dominant until after the 1994 elections. --Zyzzyva 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you are wrong. When Orbán talked about the civic center (polgári középerők) in 1992, he meant the liberal alliance of SZDSZ, Fidesz, Party of Entrepreneurs and the Agrarian Alliance. See this video, available from hvg.hu.

Cooperation with the center-right MDF was completely out of the question until the SZDSZ's 'betrayal' (ie, coalition with the Socialists) after the 1994 election; this is clear from the other videos from 1994 featuring Orbán, on the same site. The word 'civic' only got redefined (by Orbán) to mean 'on the political right' much later.

Please read the [quotes from Orbán between 1990 and 1994] collected by József Debreczeni, including the longer context of your "polgári középerők" quote. He (and Fidesz) was clearly liberal, with no hint of conservatism until the second half of 1994.

Zsebenci Klopédia 18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

nationalist[edit]

The FIDESZ-MPP are nationalists, and very likely ultra-nationalists. Why? First of all, a number of mass media articles and other coverage, both domestic (Hungarian) and foreign, have concluded, based on their actions, statements, rallies, and their own admission, that they are nationalists or ultra-nationalists. Something I witnessed in Budapest during the elections in 2002: FIDESZ-MPSZ (the part after the hyphen has changed over and over) told their voters, most of whom do not deny being nationalists, to wear the national colors pin, or cocard, and carry Hungarian flags during the elections, at all times if possible, to show that they are true, patriotic Hungarians, unlike the MSZP and their junior SZDSZ, who, acccording to FIDESZ, are traitors of the nation!!! Of the total Hungarian voting population at least 50% of them favor MSZP, SZDSZ, and an assortium of other progressive parties or the relatively moderate MDF! In fact, Mrs. Ibolya David, head of the MDF (Magyar Demokrata Forum) broke up with Mr. Viktor Orban and have since been bitter rivals for the affections of the right-wing voters!!! Anyway, I will not put the term "nationalists" or "ultra-nationalists" myself, since I was the first to notice the ommission, but I strongly suggest it should be done for historic accuracy's sake. FIDESZ-MPP are more like Austrian Jorg Haider's Freedom Party than Wolfgang Schussel's Conservative Party. Ultimately anyone concerned can contact Amnesty International or French Conservative party (Chirac will no longer take Orban's calls...wonder why...and Angela Merkel of Germany would not come to Hungary to show up for Viktor during the 2006 Spring elections...hmmm...).Lightning-Feather 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop giving this fake information to the article. clear statement can be read here, from the source abt this: fidesz tries to convince the nationalist also to vote to them, instead of MIÉP, to win. I wonder, how many other sources could be adulterated.

I ask for a check on User:Tankred's all sources because of possible adulteration. --195.56.242.11 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Fidesz "emerged as the core of integrated right conservative nationalist forces"; "the FIDESZ partly incorporated the Antall cult of inter-war nostalgia and what the HDF stood for in their time and reawakened Hungarian nationalism in a somewhat extreme form which eventually backfired in 2002", "The FIDESZ-CP also drifted progressively to more radical nationalist policies rebuilding past images and symbolism, tapping successfully the nationalist feelings". I have recently added two other sources. So, there are now three articles published in the leading English-speaking academic journals. Anyone can check them. The are all very explicit: Fidesz is a nationalist party and it is not an insult. It is just a correct description by political scientists. Tankred 00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BBC article online:

  • His Young Democrats were founded in 1988 by a small group of dissident students. Since then, Orban's politics have moved from youthful radicalism, through free-market liberalism, to centre-right nationalism. [1]

-- nyenyec  15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

People who edit here should check out the Anarchism in Hungary article. I don't think any of the organizations listed there as being anarchist are actually anarcchist at all. i don't know anything about Hungarian politics but reading the pages and descriptions of those organizations does not lead to the conclusion that they are anarchist. Blockader 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The current text says:

  • This statement has been challenged[citation needed] by the party, as the views of MIÉP are more extreme.[1][2][3] However, the presence of the extremist MIÉP in the Hungarian party system does not necessarily preclude nationalism of other political parties.

However, none of the sources support the statement that Fidesz has challenged the assertion that it's a nationalistic. The sources that have been provided support the statement that MIÉP is an extreme right wing party but this is an ignoratio elenchi it has nothing to do with FIDESZ being nationalistic or not. -- nyenyec  22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then how to prove something that is not existing? --VinceB 10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Nyenyec. That section of the article was added by VinceB in order to justify his removal of the description of the party as nationalist from the lead. I have just changed the text, so it does not contradict the sources that it cites. Tankred 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Easy to prove. I just gave researches of human rights organisations and political scientists dealing with this case. 6 yet. And if go to google, you'll get an additional 100 very-very reliable source. None of them mentions it as nationalist.

PS:I am more than happy, to see that any facts can be overwritten by jourlanists. --VinceB 09:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that the classification is subject to serious debate, along with the very (in-context) meaning of the word 'Nationalism', it is just right not to decide it one way or another, but quoting sources supporting either claims. In my opinion, however, external opinion, especially criticism, should really be moved from the leading paragraph; just see pages for horrible dictators, even they don't get morally judged in the very heading. Maybe there could be a Criticism section or something like that, where opposing and possibly also favourable reaction could be neatly presented. 84.2.212.56 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Bogus references: "MIÉP is the only nationalist party in Hungary"[edit]

The current text says:

  • Fidesz is often described as a nationalist party not only by its political opponents,[2] but also by some political scientists,[3][4] and the mainstream media. This statement has been challenged by many research organisations, and political scientists by stating that MIÉP is the only nationalist party in Hungary
  • Statement1: many research organisations challenged the statement that Fidesz is a nantionalist party.

Which are these organisations and political scientists exactly? I didn't find any in the provided references.

  • Statement2: many research organisations and political scientists stated the MIÉP is the only nationalist party in Hungary.

(Of course, even VinceB knows that this is nonsense, even if he doesn't agree with BBC and others that Fidesz is a nationalist party, I'm sure he has heard about Jobbik).

But I'm eager to see any sources that prove that MIÉP is the only nationalist party in Hungary. Remember: far right does not equal nationalist and there is such thing as a "centre right nationalist".

Also remember, that one party having attribute X does not imply that another party in the same country cannot have attribute X.

I'd like to ask a re-evaluation of the references and only give a reference when it actually supports the assertion in the preceding sentence.

Thanks, nyenyec  01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You may know, that it is a 1000 times harder to prove something that does not exist. These just reasearches about nationalism in Hungary. And fidesz is not mentioned amongst them. This is what these references are for. Should I write this in it?

Maybe I should (and would) search for better sources. Be patient, I'm not very frequently on enwiki. --VinceB 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually you wrote that the statement has been challenged. It's easy to provide a source for that, just quote the political scientists and research organisations that challenged the statement.
It's also easy to provide a reference for your other assertion, that MIEP is the only nationalist party in Hungary. Just link to the source that said this.
Meanwhile, I removed these unsourced statements (none of the sources actually support the assertions in the text). See below.
-- nyenyec  18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement has been challenged by many research organisations, and political scientists by stating that MIÉP is the only nationalist party in Hungary.[1][2][3][4][5][6] However, the presence of the extremist MIÉP in the Hungarian party system does not necessarily preclude nationalism of other political parties.[citation needed]


Just read: http://www.miep.hu - no need to go deeper in the page, it is on the front page, in the essay. Also, simply read hu:Jobbik, then answer the question: MIÉP and Jobbik got together, and they both look at Fidesz as a liberal rooted conservative opponent. Thus I'm sure you (and Tankred also) are mixing the patriotism with the nationalism, not knowing the difference between these. This is a common mistake amongst all central-european scientists, and people simply because the local history of the 20th century, patriotism did not became an established idea here/there. Not like in the US. I guess you won't call (ultra-)nationalist them, just because its full of US flags, and they want their county the best, even by bombing others... --VinceB 08:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to illustrate the flaws in you argument by a similar example from a neighboring country. In Slovakia there is an extreme nationalist political party called Slovenska Ludova Strana. For them, SNS is just a patriotic, not a nationalist party. And they even think that SNS is not patriotic enough, that SNS is in fact betraying the interests of the Slovaks. For the rest of the world, both SLS and SNS are nationalist parties, despite their different degree of nationalism. What do I mean by this anecdote? Wikipedia should use scientific references, not references to what extremists believe in. Political scientists classify political parties only after a careful analysis of their manifestos, program, and rhetoric. They take the political attitudes and behavior of the party's elite and voters into account. If they just made up their findings, their articles would be rejected by the peer-reviewed journals. I am sorry to say that your attempts to challenge the peer-reviewed scientific journals by quotations of extremist politicians somewhat reminds me of the evolution vs. creationism debate. We all know the result of this debate on Wikipedia. Tankred 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with your analogy is that this article is abt the fidesz, not the MIÉP/Jobbik/such parties, so all, what you sad above, does not stand. Why? The thing, that clearly proves the references above, with no doubt, is what is SNS's hungarian equivalent :DD Thus, my point of view was verified again, you mix the realities with some off-colour authors' visions. I'm not saying that it is purposed, since you proved several times that it's coming from not knowing things, and/or believing that those off-colour authors' statements are stands the probe of verification. Thus creationism (sic!) is your and your proved agressive vandal friend's - whom you always share the same opinion(s) (Juro) - personal privilege. This was another sneaky personal attack from you. --VinceB 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we cut the ad hominems please?
VinceB, I think you're confusing far right with nationalist. At least the sentence that you added which is still in the current text suggests that:
Political scientists and mainstream media also describe Fidesz as a nationalist party.[6][7][8][9] In the same time, Fidesz has refused cooperation with the extremist MIÉP,[10] which is the main far-right party in Hungary.[11]
You can be nationalist without being far right. Just do a Google search for "moderate nationalist", or "centre right nationalist".
-- nyenyec  21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling the Fidesz nationalist is the same, as calling the MSZP communist. Since I'm a communications expert, I show how this goes: Agenda-setting theory, Cultivation theory, Elaboration likelihood model, Social constructionism, Two-step flow of communication or Hypodermic needle model. Maybe you'll be intrested to read the Knowledge gap hypothesis also. In one word: its as a big lie, as calling the MSZP communist. Don't be neglect, since 1998 politics does not exist in Hungary, just communication experts, such as Róbert Braun [2] SZDSZ, András Wermer [3] (kiadványok->politikai elemzések->fidesz 1988-1998) now Péter Szijjártó Fidesz, and Stanley Greenberg's company, Democracy Corps for MSZP. No wonder wich party won the elections. Politics teaches you to don't think just vote. I ask you to think a bit, and don't eat whatever they put on the table for you. It could be (and 9/10 times it is)recycled food, and the remaining 1/10 times simple bulls**t. Regards --VinceB 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one" :)
I certainly respect your personal opinion, but several sources including the BBC, do describe Fidesz as a nationalist party. This is mentioned in the article, since it is a fact and is supported by multiple sources. I'm sorry to say that your personal opinion doesn't carry the same weight until you find some sources that support your assertions. See: WP:NOR. -- nyenyec  07:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree with my last change? [4] since BBC is the only one, wich is not local or from the region. --VinceB 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you added something, for which you have provided no source, unless Racz, Batori and Todosijevic are the political opponents of Fidesz. I guess you don't suggest that the BBC is.
Even if you do provide sources where its political opponents (not outsiders) do describe it as nationalist, it's hard to support the statement, that it's mainly political opponents. -- nyenyec  22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nyenyec, you didn't finish that saying. :) In its full form it says: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one, but no one wants to explore anyone else's. :) Seriously now, I think the problem here is simply that, everyone who uses the word "nationalist" means something different by it. As regards Fidesz, are they the kind of far-right, anti-foreigner, ultraconservative "nationalists" like MIEP and SNS? No, that should be fairly obvious. Fidesz definitely has some obnoxious allies but they are not far-right. Rather, they are mainstream-conservative, centre-right, "patriotic" types. We should very carefully define (in the article!) troublesome and easily misunderstood words like "nationalism". K. Lastochka 03:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: I, think that you too, just as VinceB before you fall into the trap of confusing nationalist with far right. I need to write this down a again: there is such a thing as centre-right nationalist.
Longer answer: Actually, the situation with the ideology of Fidesz is even more complicated then you describe. They are not far-right like MIÉP and Jobbik, but since they need the votes from the supporters of those other parties they do heavily use nationalistic rhetoric, symbolism and appeal to nationalist emotions quite a lot (especially considering where they come from: in the early 90's this was the exact rhetoric from Antall's MDF that Fidesz clearly rejected).
Another related issue is that unlike most centre-right parties in Western Europe, Fidesz refuses to distance themselves from the far right, since they do need their votes (contrary what the current article text says, but I don't have the time to look for English references atm).
To further complicate clear labeling of their ideology, their economic program is not conservative at all, it's certainly further left from that of MSZP, which supposed to be the "socialist" party (Fidesz promised higher government spending in their campaing, they are against further privatization, use anti-big-capital and protectionist rhetoric, against cutting almost any government sponsored welfare programs and benefits etc.).
But I do agree that instead of trying to find the best fitting labels the "Ideology" section should talk about these things in more detail.
-- nyenyec  00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mess of my own point! :( I was trying to say that to some people, "nationalist" does mean "far right", but to others it means "patriotic". I got myself all mixed up and made a very unclear point. I should learn to speak English better (which is pretty pathetic since it's my native language.) All I was trying to say was we should be very clear what exactly we mean by "nationalist", otherwise it runs the risk of being misunderstood. And I do know very well that there are centre-right and centrist nationalists--I'm a bit of a centrist nationalist myself, with some liberal tendencies. :)

I hereby resolve to carefully write and then carefully proofread what I post to avoid more instances of making the exact opposite point of what I wanted to! :) K. Lastochka 03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nationalist" in English and Hungarian[edit]

I guess one could mention that the party itself doesn't use the term "nationalist" when describing its own ideology.

Side note: IMHO this is not because it's not a nationalist party, it is certainly keen to use nationalist rhetoric [5] and symbols. But in Hungary the direct translation of nationalist ("nacionalista") became a swear word in the past 50 years, like "liberal" did in the US and it is never used to describe one's own views any more. But it doesn't have the same negative connotations in English, where it is a much more neutral term. In Hungarian the terms "nemzeti érzelmű", "nemzeti erők", "nemzeti oldal" have been invented to get around the dreaded "nacionalista", but they mean the same thing (just like "progressive" replaced "liberal" in the US). -- nyenyec  22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that this term simply does not fit for this party. I'd rather say, that the negative campaigning spread outside of Hungary also. Of course I agree that BBC is a non political opponent, but the other three are. So that's 3:1 for the short term "by it's political opponents, and some journals".

For ex Financial Times would consider fidesz as nationalist also, since it's a left-wing newspaper, but Le Pen would call it other, since it's a right wing journal. A journalist's statement in an article isn't enough. And as I mentioned in a sarcastic way, I'm not happy, that journalist can owerwrite whatever they like to. I'm sure, you'll be able to find enough better refs, from pol. experts. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed academic journals are considered authoritative resources in every discipline, including political science. There is no place for original research or POV (User:VinceB: "this term simply does not fit for this party") in Wikipedia. I can hardly imagine more objective and professional references than the Party Politics journal and BBC. Tankred 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


VinceB again, we're contrasting your opinions with the cited references, which is not the way the discussion should work. You should cite reliable source supporting your point or somehow prove that the sources provided are not reliable.
To put it bluntly: your personal opinion doesn't count unless you support it with reliable references.
Now we're drifting off-topic here but calling Financial Times "left wing" is, well strange, as is calling Jean-Marie Le Pen a "journal". I could swear that he was a person. :)
-- nyenyec  16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok ...so i can bring a million reference of someone saying Orban is the devil..is it any good? This nationalist thingy is disgusting. The article starts and ends with that bullshit, and referenced 5 times. Very very interesting. i can bring a million reference for that from BulgárGyuresz or some MSZP shithead, but thats not gonna be true for that. And what do u mean mainstream media? Népszabadság? Népszava? My ass... So pls remove this 'nationalist' shit. Or is this the judeobolshipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.124.75 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed consequent with consistent[edit]

"Consequent" means something else in English than "konzekvens" in Hungarian and the latter is translated to "consistent" in English. The map I couldn't edit, however. Could someone help with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.60.121 (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



Fidesz – Hungarian Civic UnionFidesz — As with Jobbik (Jobbik – The Movement for a Better Hungary), Likud (HaLikud), the Conservative Party (UK) (Conservative and Unionist Party) and countless other political parties, the common name of this party is not the same as its full name. Please see the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Spectator, and the San Francisco Chronicle. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Clear instance of common name. Ucucha 01:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Never seen it called anything but Fidesz; plenty of evidence. —innotata 21:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, for the same reasons I gave in the discussion at Talk:Jobbik. Knepflerle (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

It likely should not be described as conservative.[edit]

My sense is that nationalism is being equated with conservativism. Especially on economic and welfare policy, and except on citizenship and religious issues, Fidesz is to the left of the three major parties in Britain and the two major parties in the U.S. At one time the party may have been conservative, but best to leave that out now. The times they are a-changin'.Haberstr (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Stereotyping political criticism in Hungary[edit]

It is true that there is a great deal of left/right polarization in Hungary, hence often it is the left criticizing the right or the right criticizing the left. But there is also a lot of stereotyping, and this tends to be done more by the right than the left: The right often reflexively classifies any view it does not like (or that does not like it) as "left-liberal." Often this is true, but sometimes traits are called left-liberal that are not, and criticism is labelled as left-liberal that isn't. This is the case with worldwide criticism of some of the new laws that have been adopted by the Hungarian supermajority government, including press control laws and, more recently, the gerrymandering of electoral laws. The criticism is coming from democrats on the left and the right, and so Wikipedia editors should not be allowed to stereotype all criticism of government policy as "left-liberal" (as is done with impunity in Hungary). Wikipedia is international. Much better to face the substance of the criticism head-on rather than to dismiss it as simply being partisan carping by the usual suspects. See the controversy section, where an edit war is going on about the insertion and removal of this descriptor. Stevan Harnad 15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)harnad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talkcontribs)


Just one example: the charges about gerrymandering were all based on a study written by an organization ("Haza és Haladás Alapítvány") of ex-Socialist Prime Minister Bajnai who aspires to be a PM candidate in 2014. The study was refuted pretty much as far as facts are concerned but the leftist opposition media and political forces (domestically and worldwide) don't bother. Besides the source was a writing from a certain Márton Dornbach who writes such extremist pieces in far-left wing papers: http://magyarnarancs.hu/publicisztika/egy-tollvonassal-78452 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.159.154 (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, your definition and your analysis of who or what is left-wing or far-left. It is not supported by WP:reliable sources. Wikipedia does not publish WP:original research done by its contributors, even if it is reasonable or convincing. --RJFF (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fidesz driven government acknowledges Hungarys was partially responsible for the Holocaust and appologies for that[edit]

Considering that Fidesz is often said to support or at least tolerate antisemitism, this is a significant information imho, especially since it is the first government doing this. I have only german language sources (Die Welt, Hungarian Voice) for that though.SüsüASárkány (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add the source. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Quote: "For the first time, Budapest has acknowledged its partial responsibility for the Holocaust and appologies." (http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article124319998/Ungarn-relativiert-seine-Holocaust-Mitverantwortung.html)
Quote: "With János Áder the first hungarian head of the state hast acknowledged the responsibility of the hungarian state on the hungarian Holocaust." (http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/international/reportagen-und-analysen/schuldeingestaendnis-und-opferrolle-1.18231679)
Quote: "New York: Hungarys leader of the delegation asks victims of the Shoa for for sorry in the name of Hungary." (http://hungarianvoice.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/new-york-ungarns-delegationsfuhrer-bei-der-uno-bittet-die-opfer-der-shoa-im-namen-ungarns-um-verzeihung/)
Hope, these will do it.SüsüASárkány (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fidesz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fidesz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Fidesz's ideology[edit]

Hey guys! The Fidesz's ideology is the Anti-immigration, Anti-communism, Euroscepticism, National conservatism and the Christian democracy. The Fidesz is hates the islam state and the terrorists. --ViceCity343 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Go away Nazi. This isn't a forum.2601:140:8980:106F:6109:4E1F:FE52:BB57 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fidesz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User Norden1990, please explain how attributed statements violate NPOV[edit]

You reverted the following sentences with the claim that they violate WP:NPOV[6]:

  • In September 2016, Human Rights Watch said that the Fidesz government was engaging in a "xenophobic anti-Migrant campaign"
  • The World Jewish Congress has said that Fidesz bear some responsibility for the rise of anti-Semitism in Hungary
  • Amnesty International has accused the Fidesz government of "discrimination against the Roma".

Please explain how they violate NPOV. The statements above are clearly attributed to these particular organizations, which is entirely consistent with the attribution policy outlined in WP:NPOV[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Snooganssnoogans, you should leave your ideology at home and should not bring politics into WP. As Fidesz is a large, active party currently governing a country, of course there are thousands of forums in which it is criticized. Bringing all arguments and contra-arguments into WP would make it a political battleground. We should only stick to the bare facts and even restrict ourselves from presenting every opinion about a political party. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a safe space. If you want one, go to Conservapedia. We report what reliable sources report and attribute notable claims by notable individuals and organizations. When organizations like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch make such strong claims about actors, it always merits inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an inherent objection to the inclusion of controversial statements made by party members – it's consistent with how Wikipedia addresses, for instance, racist statements made by politicians of the Sweden Democrats. The comments by NGOs, however, seem rather irrelevant to the whole issue – what would be more pertinent to the article would be the domestic political reaction (e.g. statements by members of the MSZP) rather than some NGOs which have little relevance to Hungarian politics. Mélencron (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
These are NGOs that as part of their mission examine the human rights situation in specific countries. They are highly notable, and their reports attract significant attention by the international press. When they use as strong language as they do about Fidesz or any other actor, it usually merits automatic inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Statements of party members might be relevant if they had some role in the party at the time they made their controversial statements, e.g., MPs or ministers. On the other hand, even in that case I would be very careful not to bring actual politics into WP. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, you're now referring to something unrelated to what this talk section is about. As for your mass removal of content and your original research claims for why they don't belong in the article: Reliable sources disagree. They find it notable that the co-founder of the party writes these things, that the party doesn't condemn these writings, that some in the party leadesrhip defend these writings, that it doesn't condemn neo-nazi rallies that receive international attention and so on. This is all in the reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
What is exactly my original research? That he did not talk in the name of the party? Can you prove that he did? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You're asserting that none of the content has anything to do with Fidesz despite the fact that every single one of the dozen or so sources explicitly refer to Fidesz. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I also don't see why statements by the Hungarian Socialist Party would be more pertinent here. Surely, there is more value in the assessment of human rights in Hungary by highly notable human rights NGOs than by Fidesz' domestic political opponents? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with you that the opinion of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are more relevant than that of the Hungarian Socialist Party, as it is this party's main competitor and the two parties are constantly quarreling about everything, which is again a natural thing in a democracy. Nevertheless, WP should not report about every political dispute. Do the NGOs mentioned have direct *general* opinions about the *party* itself? In that case, we can include them in the controversies section. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
As can be seen in the quotes above, they are talking about the party itself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Then, we may include the claims by AI and HRW listed above in the controversies section. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
These are only political opinions. Lead sections must contain only factual information and short summary. It's obvious that Fidesz, a sister party of Likud, is not anti-Semitic party. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
(I) So, you no longer hold to the claim that this violates NPOV. There is absolutely nothing in NPOV that prevents opinions from being added to articles. (II) Per WP:lede[8]: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." We don't omit notable content from the lede if it's in the main body of the article. There is absolutely no policy that says that attributed opinions don't belong in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The WP Manual of Style is a very general suggestion for all kinds of articles. It should be very carefully applied here, as here we talk about politics. There is no significant, large party in the world which did not receive a thousand criticisms and various degrading tags. It is the nature of democracy. Which of those should we present? Do you want to include an overlong list like, the opinion of source X is A, the opinion of source Y is B, the opinion of source Z is C, etc., or you want to cherry-pick some sources and opinions to support a certain point of view? I do think that it is an NPOV issue. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I recommend you read IRS[9] and DUE[10]. The WP Manual of Style doesn't stop applying to articles related to politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope you have also read them carefully, as it seems you want to put undue weight to some opinions. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Whose opinion do you want to add to the article? Whose opinions am I excluding from the article? If a notable organization says that Fidesz are none of the things stated above, please add that to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You must be joking when you ask for "notable organization says that Fidesz are none of the things", so if there are no sources claiming the moon is *not* made of cheese then we should include the opinion of a lunatic who claims that it is? The undue weight comes from the fact that you cherry-pick one or two events and opinions about a large party which has a long history. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you specify what you're referring to because you make absolutely zero sense. In your mass removal of content, you removed articles by BBC News, Der Spiegel, the Toronto Star, Hungary Today, the Economist and an OpenDemocracy article by a scholars specializing in antiziganism. With all these sources, you're seriously going to argue that the content that I've provided has been cherry-picked? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying you've cherry-picked publications, but sources – i.e., only sources that discuss Fidesz within the context of the anti-immigration policies of the Hungarian government/pushing a specific POV. Mélencron (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you're going to have a very hard time making the case that the sources used here are unreliable. Additional reliable sources can easily be found for every claim made in the content I've added, but I would have thought that articles by BBC News, Der Spiegel, the Toronto Star, Hungary Today, the Economist etc. would suffice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Read what I wrote again – I never claimed that the sources you used were unreliable. (Well, Hungary Today is definitely questionable, but probably not the rest.) In any case, that's beside the point – the problem is that you're breaching NPOV with your additions and offering undue weight to the issue. Mélencron (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your comment. You said that these sources were "pushing a POV" and claimed that I gave undue weight to the issues covered in the articles even though all these reliable sources say the same thing, and a slew of other reliable sources can easily be found for every sentence I added. These are not off-hand remarks in a single obscure publication, but the focus of many of these articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying that you're pushing a POV. Mélencron (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I think so, too. From tens of thousands of media reports about various events related to Fidesz over its quite long history, Snooganssnoogans only selects a handful negative media reports which use a certain POV about few events. This is POV pushing by putting undue weight to specific events and sources. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
There are countless additional reliable source reporting about Fidesz and its anti-semitism, antiziganism and xenophobia. Are you seriously asking me to find more sources than the dozen or so that I've already added and which no one here contests in terms of their reliability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This is where we end up in the talk when you're incapable of actually discussing the content at hand and the merits of its inclusion per Wiki policy. You go on to accuse me of POV pushing, which is uncivil[11] and also totally false: "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas... Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing" These are not "minor or fringe ideas", but content supported by a slew of reliable sources, more of which can easily be found. The content is so strongly supported by reliable sources that neither you nor anyone else here even bothers to contest its accuracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd think that the controversial elements of Orban (of the party) and Jobbik (completely separate) are already well-covered on the English Wikipedia. Before 2014, the party was mostly of the mainstream European centre-right, and my personal view is that it should be largely covered as such, rather than taking a few controversial statements of its politicians and painting the simply painting entire party as one of the far-right/anti-immigrant right, which it isn't – as those are more representative of the statements of Orban and specific party members than the party as a whole. The corresponding Hungarian article doesn't even touch on the topic significantly. Mélencron (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Fidesz' anti-immigration stance, and accusations of anti-semitism and antiziganism[edit]

The consensus is against the RfC's proposed text. Winged Blades of Godric's proposed text did not receive sufficient discussion in this RfC to determine a consensus so I recommend further discussion or another RfC about it. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following content be included in this article:

Fidesz has adopted anti-immigration stances and rhetoric.[1][2][3][4] Fidesz has been accused of xenophobia.[5][6][7] In September 2016, Human Rights Watch said that the Fidesz government was engaging in a "xenophobic anti-Migrant campaign".[8]

In April 2016, Israel's Ambassador to Hungary condemned the writings of Zsolt Bayer, co-founder of Fidesz, which he said "openly advocate anti-Semitic sentiments and incite against the Jewish People and the State of Israel."[9] The Fidesz government gave Bayer a prestigious award in March 2016, which led the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to condemn "the long-standing refusal of the leadership of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz Party to distance itself from Bayer, in spite of Bayer’s repeated pattern of racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and anti-Roma incitement".[10] The World Jewish Congress has said that Fidesz bear some responsibility for the rise of anti-Semitism in Hungary.[11] The Fidesz government has downplayed the problem of rising antisemitism in the country, in addition to attributing it to the European Union.[12]

Fidesz has been accused of antiziganism.[13][3][12][14][15] Amnesty International has accused the Fidesz government of "discrimination against the Roma".[13] Zsolt Bayer, co-founder of Fidesz, has written that "a significant part of the Roma are unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Roma are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn't be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved -- immediately and regardless of the method."[16] Nobody in the Fidesz party leadership condemned Bayer's writings, with some defending them.[16] When 1,000 Neo-nazi demonstrators held a rally in the small village of Devecser (pop: ca 5,000) and threatening the Roma inhabitants of the town in an episode that received international attention, the Fidesz government did not issue a firm condemnation of the incident.[17][18]

References

  1. ^ "A Race To The Far Right In Hungarian Politics". NPR.org. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  2. ^ "Hungary set to reject EU refugee quotas in referendum". The Independent. 2016-10-02. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  3. ^ a b "Hungary's future: anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism and anti-Roma?". openDemocracy. 2015-08-03. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  4. ^ Nolan, Daniel (2015-07-02). "Hungary government condemned over anti-immigration drive". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  5. ^ "Orban's ratings rise as Hungarian fence deters migrant 'invasion'". Reuters. 2016-11-06. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  6. ^ "Hungary's rightward shift fuels harsh refugee policy". Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  7. ^ "Hungary lays the xenophobia on thick in national questionnaire about immigration". Public Radio International. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  8. ^ "Hungary's Xenophobic Anti-Migrant Campaign". Human Rights Watch. 2016-09-13. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  9. ^ "Israel's envoy to Hungary blasts mainstream daily's 'anti-Semitic' columns". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  10. ^ "U.S. Holocaust Museum Slams Hungary's Award to anti-Semitic Journalist". Haaretz. 2017-08-24. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  11. ^ "Anti-Semitism taboo under threat in Hungary". Reuters. 2017-05-21. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  12. ^ a b Germany, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Hamburg. "Missing the Point: Hungarian Leader Whitewashes Anti-Semitism - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International". SPIEGEL ONLINE. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  13. ^ a b "Amnesty International Slams "Most Disappointing" Hungary Over Its "Worrysome" Refugee Policies - Hungary Today". Hungary Today. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  14. ^ "Why the Roma are fleeing Hungary and why Canada is shunning them | Toronto Star". thestar.com. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  15. ^ Germany, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Hamburg. "Hungary's Racism Problem: Orbán Friend Says Roma 'Shouldn't Be Allowed to Exist' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International". SPIEGEL ONLINE. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  16. ^ a b Germany, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Hamburg. "Blurring Boundaries: Hungarian Leader Adopts Policies of Far-Right - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International". SPIEGEL ONLINE. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  17. ^ Cain, Phil (2012-09-01). "Hungary nationalists whip up anti-Roma feelings". BBC News. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  18. ^ "You are going to die here". The Economist. 2012-08-23. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2017-02-28.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • WP:RFCQ#Neutrality Mélencron (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- Amply supported by a wide range of reliably sources. The NGOs that are mentioned are notable and respected, and the statements that are made by those NGOs are attributed correctly to them and not stated in Wiki-voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – blatant NPOV, overwhelming reliance on sources from – and reflecting a viewpoint primarily perpetuated in – English-language media, and presents an obviously unbalanced view of the party primarily based on existing perceptions of the nature of Hungarian politics and actions of the Hungarian government which are not necessarily in themselves reflective of the position of the party. In particular, one should not treat the topic of the Orbán government as synonymous with the party Fidesz; the controversial aspects of his government have already been well-documented elsewhere on Wikipedia at more relevant venues (i.e. here and here – the article on Orbán). See: the repeated usage of the "Fidesz government". If there's a place to include it, it's on Orbán's article, not here. The most that I support is (1) noting the party's anti-immigration policies in the "ideology" section and (2) creating a "controversies" section for the numerous incidents involving racist/xenophobic/antiziganist comments made by notable party members, in line with similar sections on other parties' articles. (Any actions of the government reflective of these views – e.g., ignoring a neo-Nazi demonstration – doesn't really pertain to this article, but much more so to Orbán's article.) should, again, probably be added to Orbán's article – not on the party's article.) The article should mostly focus, in general, on the party's ideology and electoral history – not on its history in government, which is more appropriate, as in almost all cases, on articles for the heads of state or government during the party's period in government. Fidesz won the 2014 election as a fairly benign centre-right party, and I don't think it's either a fair or accurate depiction to solely emphasize its policies on immigration when the Orbán government has attracted a litany of other controversies domestically – say, its contentious economic policies. It's in the succeeding years that Orbán took his country in a more openly "illiberal" direction – and even then this pertains far more to Orbán than it does to Fidesz, which is merely but an electoral vehicle in this situation.
Yes, there are fringe elements within the party – but remember that Fidesz is essentially uncontested in its dominance of Hungarian politics, and despite the anti-immigrant actions of the government, the section you propose including essentially attempts to paint the party – as opposed to the current government – as largely racist and antiziganist based on individual statements by party members. Wikipedia is not a political soapbox to say that a political party supported by most Hungarians is nothing but racist. Based on your contribution history, I assume you came here from writing about Sebastian Gorka, where you've similarly become involved in disputes about the inclusion of content which might paint individuals in a certain light. I'm not inherently opposed to the inclusion of xenophobic or racist comments by party members, but it should be done in a neutral manner – i.e., without the obvious intent to paint the party as racist. Mélencron (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose--The tone of the writing is way too biased and in my opinion, definitely tries to paint the subject in a bad light.Whilst, I don't have any problems with the sources, it's worth remembering that the same set of sources could manifest in styles of writing, radically different from one another in approach and outlook.Also, we don't need to individually put what every organization/person said against the party and push their faulty approach/policies down the reader's throat.Winged Blades Godric 13:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Something like this would be more suitable in my eyes----

Fidesz has been heavily criticized for adoption of anti-immigration stances and stoking xenophobia.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

In April 2016, Israel's Ambassador to Hungary condemned the writings of Zsolt Bayer, co-founder of Fidesz, which he said "openly advocate anti-Semitic sentiments and incite against the Jewish People and the State of Israel."[9]

Fidesz has been also accused of antiziganism.[10][3][11][12][13] Amnesty International has accused the Fidesz government of "discrimination against the Roma".[10]

The Fidesz government has downplayed the problem of rising antisemitism in the country, instead attributing it to the European Union.[11]

References

  1. ^ "A Race To The Far Right In Hungarian Politics". NPR.org. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  2. ^ "Hungary set to reject EU refugee quotas in referendum". The Independent. 2016-10-02. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  3. ^ a b "Hungary's future: anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism and anti-Roma?". openDemocracy. 2015-08-03. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  4. ^ Nolan, Daniel (2015-07-02). "Hungary government condemned over anti-immigration drive". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  5. ^ "Orban's ratings rise as Hungarian fence deters migrant 'invasion'". Reuters. 2016-11-06. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  6. ^ "Hungary's rightward shift fuels harsh refugee policy". Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  7. ^ "Hungary lays the xenophobia on thick in national questionnaire about immigration". Public Radio International. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  8. ^ "Hungary's Xenophobic Anti-Migrant Campaign". Human Rights Watch. 2016-09-13. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  9. ^ "Israel's envoy to Hungary blasts mainstream daily's 'anti-Semitic' columns". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  10. ^ a b "Amnesty International Slams "Most Disappointing" Hungary Over Its "Worrysome" Refugee Policies - Hungary Today". Hungary Today. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  11. ^ a b Germany, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Hamburg. "Missing the Point: Hungarian Leader Whitewashes Anti-Semitism - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International". SPIEGEL ONLINE. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  12. ^ "Why the Roma are fleeing Hungary and why Canada is shunning them | Toronto Star". thestar.com. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
  13. ^ Germany, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Hamburg. "Hungary's Racism Problem: Orbán Friend Says Roma 'Shouldn't Be Allowed to Exist' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International". SPIEGEL ONLINE. Retrieved 2017-02-28.
@Snooganssnoogans and Mélencron:--How does this look?Winged Blades Godric 13:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I could go along with that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose both biased, unreferenced texts which based on manipulation of the sources. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fidesz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fidesz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Political position[edit]

Should the political position of Fidesz be changed? Centre-right seems outdated, seeing how most of the sources connecting Fidesz to that position are from 2011 or earlier. Rather, they are increasingly characterized as a hard right or even far-right party (see the last paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidesz#Ideology), with political analyst Peter Kreko arguing that they have in fact switched places with Jobbik over the last years (https://www.hate-speech.org/hungarys-far-right-no-longer-the-fringe/). I would suggest at least changing the political position to simply "right-wing", or possibly even "right-wing to far-right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradisets portar (talkcontribs) 09:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd support a change to "right-wing" only because an internet search shows almost no mention of the party being centre-right after 2011 or 2012, while also documenting a move to the right. Not sure about far-right though. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 04:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I support the move to "right-wing". Centre-right is completely outdated with sources mainly from 2011.

For "far right" you have to first find reliable sources. I personally have no problem with it, but feels it is quite problematic. Appropriate comparisons would be Law and Justice labelled "right-wing" and Freedom Party of Austria labelled "right-wing to far right", while much more extreme parties like Alternative for Germany or Party for Freedom have the same labelling "right-wing to far right". It might be useful to make an consensus around wikipedia on this. Once upon a time I have seen the using of "right-wing to radical right in order to define parties, that have radical populist rhetoric and few extreme themes, but are not themselves extreme in core nature. Not sure, if nowadays applicable for Fidesz (or Law and Justice or Austrian Freedom Party). --217.30.64.202 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Many western liberal media describes Fidesz as a far-right party, due to it adopts many far-right positions include migrants and refugees.Paul Lincoln (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Fidesz is a member of the centre-right European People's Party, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU also join with. Many CDU/CSU MEP members are also vote with Fidesz.Paul Lincoln (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Relating to the point made above, just right-wing could suffice for now, until more sources over a wider distribution give it the label of far-right. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 06:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be reluctant to label it far-right. Sure, there are sources for that, but there are also sources that say centre-right. There was a similar debate over position on Independent Greeks and the consensus was that due to sources saying both far-right and centre-right as well as right-wing, the solution was just to leave it as right-wing.--Jay942942 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
On the topic of the PiS, there are also many sources that describe that as far-right but I'm not sure that designation would be appropriate for WP.--Jay942942 (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Far right designation[edit]

I move to consider the Fidesz party as being a right-wing to far-right party. My primary argument being that in many recent media articles, particularly from The New York Times[1] and The Independent,[2] the Orbán government has been referred to as far-right. Moreover, the party has also been called "soft fascist"[3] due to the repealment of many democratic norms. Fascism is, of course, considered a far-right ideology, so it is fair to consider Fidesz to be a party representing right-wing to far-right views. Further news articles besides the ones I have just cited again refer to the party as far-right or alt-right,[4][5][6][7][8] and this list is by no means exhaustive. Finally, albeit anecdotal, I have also spoken to a political scientist, who considers the current Hungarian government to be far-right, and would expect most political scientists to agree with that view. As such, I think it would be very fair to change the party ideology to reflect the contemporary media and academic perspective.

As for the reason I am moving for this changes at this particular time? The recent changes to the Hungarian labour laws has led to further media scrutiny, and a greater number of media outlets have openly identified the Orbán government as far-right, as seen in the citations above. I think it would be, at this point, much more damaging not to present the Fidesz party as right-wing to far-right.

The problem is all of these trials are coming from only those news and media concerns, individuals who in the past eight years as well attacked Fidesz and the Hungarian Government, many times with groundless or exaggerated accusations with a huge double measure comparing to other states where the same or worse happened, but just because they did not share conservative right-wing views and disagreed on more high-level political questions, they were not attacked at the same manner. I it is also true for the labor laws, and just because these media groups try to ride and blow up all the happenings, since the law and the events has not any connection to any-far right views or attitude (considering there are at-least two real far-right political parties in the Hungarian political life in oppositon or recension to Fidesz and they don't share the same views). Consequently in order to remain objective with a proper balance, in the ideology section you may put that some media groups since many years in opposition have these opinions, but it cannot be stated as a fact.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC))
I think I understand why we are disagreeing. The Fidesz party has a history of being criticised by the opposition and left-wing parties since 2010. As such, I understand why there is a lot of caution to labelling the party as far-right or fascist; there may be an agenda for doing so. Looking at the section above (Political position), it appears that there was also disagreement over the party ideology. It was decided, based on contemporary news articles, that the party was right-wing. It was also decided that for the party to be labelled as far-right, we would to "first find reliable sources". The news articles I have cited are from The New York Times, The Independent, The Atlantic and Vox, which are all independent news organisation that do not have an agenda. That being said, I do not think that it is fair to label the party as exclusively far-right, since other news organisation, e.g. The Guardian, have called the party right-wing, as opposed to far-right.[9] In the added sentence "mostly by those media groups and individuals who have been in opposition to the Hungarian government and criticized the party and it's [sic] policy since 2010", I cannot agree with claim "have been in opposition", as these are independent news organisations reporting on Hungary, nor do I agree with the phrase "criticized the party and it's [sic] policy since 2010", as these media groups have not been calling the party far-right since 2010; it is a recent development. As such, I believe this has satisfied the "reliable sources" condition. I have undone the additional sentence for the time being until consensus is reached, and am again moving to change the political position to "right-wing to far-right". MWKwiki (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, the problem is regardless some media goups are officially regarded "independent", there are those groups who consistently attacking/labeling/accusing the party with some designations that does not hold (regardless what it is, if there is a chance it is done, even if the epithes are varying...mostly the left side and media groups nationally/internationally who traditionally criticizing and labeling right wing parties, or their policies (even if the right/left designation in some other countries have no interpretation based on different political heritage, but the direction and idea have common directions)...Hungary and it's government is recently a target mainly beucase of it's anti-immigration policy and opposition to the some European policies (European United States vs. Federalism of strong national states, etc. in scope of the forthcoming European Parlamentiary Elections). Fidesz factually has no connection to any far-right agenda, not even commited such. Thus such opinons may only represented as an opinion of some circles. If you are not agreeing with the added sentence, we should rephrase together until we both agree (don't misunderstand me, I have no problem mentioning what these media groups say, that it should be evaluated and identified properly). Conseuqently, do not change the political position to "right-wing to far-right", becuase it is false and not even a generally accepted view and there is no consensus for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC))
Agreed. I will not modify the official party political position. I have added a sentence explaining the Fidesz party's response to the allegations of right-wing extremism with supporting sources. Feel free to modify if there is still disagreement, but this should be quite close now. MWKwiki (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Fine, thank you!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC))
This is funny how the hysterical leftists & their far-leftists friends happen to spam "far-right" when new antisemitic acts took place in France. Moreover, it shouldn't be forgotten that those same leftists tolerate the islamo-leftism & radical Salafist movement & mosquees in European countries (especially on the West). You should stop look for scapegoats on the right-wing side & behave like real adults with a free will by questioning yourselves. And to end it all, fascism is the intolerance of point of views which is typically characterized by the leftists again nowadays by censoring EVERYONE who got anti-immigration views (Illegam Muslim wave), national conservatism & nationalist views (as people who actually love their country & opposed to multiculturalism that doesn't work at all) of "racists, xenophobes" etc. Actual censorship took place by banning people like Candace Owen, Sargon of Akkad (Twitter) etc. from the big social media techs companies, to hide their embarass. Fascism originally didn't have a specific political position. Before spreading your mainstream media fake news & your defamations, go read some decent alternative media. You should wonder WHY mainstream media actually got very poor ratings & why they're so unpopular, & why there are more & more people who are mistrustful of them. And finally, you've ironically become what you desperately claim to fight: https://ukusablog.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/the-nazi-party-was-a-left-wing-liberal-elite-progressive-political-correctness-movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by New00100 (talkcontribs) 10:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously Fidesz has not any connection to far-right, this has been discussed throrougly, because there is one European Union and one Hungarian self-governing elections ahead, the opponents of the governing party make every effort to maintain defamation, thus every such attempts should be reverted, Wikipedia cannot be the battleground of the recent pre-election campaigns, shall it be Fidesz or any other party.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC))
Communists Socialists are only good on lying (i.e. 2006 protests), crying & bitching. I'd like to remind those ignorants that the MSZP got Communist roots, that it is a party formed from the fall of Communism to succeed that same Communist party. If those immature kids got time to spam their shit propaganda, they should spend it on changing Jobbik position "from center to far-right" due to how their current leadership is swapping MASSIVELY to the left liberal block, as it was stated both by Fidesz & the new right-wing party "Our Home Movement".
Please sign your comments in the future. We should remain inside the framework if Wikipedia, at least Kocka78 admitted my argumentation is right but he/she falsely believed we may avoid WP:NPOV, etc. As per consensus, in the Ideology section the accusations with far-right is already included, but we cannot change the party designation for something that is not valid.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ Kingsley, Patrick. "Opposition in Hungary Demonstrates Against Orban, in Rare Display of Dissent". New York Times. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  2. ^ "Michael Gove refuses to condemn far-right Hungarian leader Viktor Orban", The Independent, 16 September 2018, retrieved 16 September 2018
  3. ^ Beauchamp, Zack. "It happened there: how democracy died in Hungary". Vox. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  4. ^ Schaeffer, Carol (28 May 2017). "How Hungary Became a Haven for the Alt-Right".
  5. ^ Dunai, Marton. "Hungary's Orban courts far-right voters ahead of 2018 vote".
  6. ^ "Hungary elections: Another populist test for Europe?". www.aljazeera.com.
  7. ^ "Hungary gears up for election: what is at stake?".
  8. ^ Huetlin, Josephine (7 April 2018). "In Hungary, Real News Has Become NSFW" – via www.thedailybeast.com.
  9. ^ Walker, Shaun. "Hungary passes 'slave law' prompting fury among opposition MPs". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 December 2018.

@KIENGIR:

Looking over the last 500 edits, I find that at least the following editors (also including me, and possibly others) have believed that a right-wing to far-right designation is justified and have consequently attempted to change the party's listed political position in the infobox, each time providing reliable media sources:

@Kocka78: @MWKwiki: @2600:1700:ec50:b070:2c2:c6ff:fe3e:571a: @WyGolf: @삭은사과: @Blue-Haired Lawyer: @Jeff6045:

At this point, I do not believe the claim that there is editor consensus that the party does not have far-right tendencies can be justified, only that editors on one side are far more conflict averse and less inclined to litigate the issue on the talk page at length.

It should be noted that international observers have detected a marked shift rightward in the party's positions and policies in recent years rendering some previous discussions and possible consensuses reached moot. Furthermore, ALL comparable (and, in fact, allied) parties in other European countries that I can think of are designated as right-wing to far-right in their respective wiki pages, including Lega Nord, Law and Justice, Freedom Party of Austria, Alternative for Germany, Sweden Democrats, UK Independence Party, National Rally (France), and Vox (political party). In fact, Fidesz may not only be just one example of the wave of right-wing to far-right parties in Europe, but the prototypical example. If one cannot label Fidesz as such, the designations of all the aforementioned parties would also need to be contested.

I must also point out that arguments put forth against the right-wing to far-right designation by KIENGIR and New00100 in this section are eerily reminiscent of proclamations made in Soviet propaganda denouncing the adversarial mendacious imperialist capitalist media of the West. I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing that Pravda is the only reliable source of information on the Soviet Communist Party, and that all accusations by the hostile Western media and their internal allies should be disregarded as propaganda.

I think the issue at hand should be re-examined. I propose a designation as right-wing to far-right; I believe it is justified by reliable sources, and is already used for parties with comparable politics and policies.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay Hodec,
there is no problem if you wish to discuss the issue - as you are one of the editors who recurrently added criticist material that had to be consistently POV-repaired -, however the analogy with other parties/articles have no relevance since every case has to be discussed and evaluated properly on the particular context.
However regarding this statement of yours reminiscent of proclamations made in Soviet propaganda denouncing the adversarial mendacious imperialist capitalist media of the West -> I have to protest intensively and have to treat it as ridicoulous, since the so-called "West" does not have a uniform view about this, since the whole issue is between left-wing-liberal politics and right-wing conservative politics, without any geography (that has been already discussed as well)
I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing that Pravda is the only reliable source of information on the Soviet Communist Party, and that all accusations by the hostile Western media and their internal allies should be disregarded as propaganda. -> Regarding this, if you do not retreat and apologize immediately, I have to treat it as a serious personal attack, since I'm heavily against Communism that made horrible especially Hungary's fate among others and personally the Communists persecuted my family as well. Shame on you of trying to deteriorate from the point on abusive personal speculations!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
Firstly, I must take issue with your characterisation of my edits as "criticist". The content I added reflected the overwhelming findings of respected international news media institutions. By your metric, inclusion of any and all unflattering content is "criticist". Is adding content regarding human rights abuses by the Maduro government in Venezuela also "criticist"? Or adding information about the Cambodian genocide to the page for Khmer Rouge?
A significant portion of the content in the article was added or modified by me. Did I make some errors along the way? Sure. In fact, I always find and amend some during the second and third readings, however, you were sometimes "correcting" my edits while my editing of sections was still incomplete/in progress. However, I must again object regarding your supposed "POV-repairs". I think I was impartial and objective in my edits throughout, and that my editing reflected the source material to the best of my abilities. Not a few of your objections were actually levied against the sources themselves. Other times, I disagreed with your objections but relented out of a sense of exasperation, including on the issue we're discussing now.
Of course precedent has relevance. If a party in a neighbouring state shares Fidesz's ideology and is regarded as right-wing to far-right, and Fidesz is not, it is only reasonable to assume that one of the designations is wrong.
I'm sorry, but the New York Times, Washington Post, The Independent, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, the Associate Press, etc. are widely regarded as non-political investigative outlets.
"Regarding this, if you do not retreat and apologize immediately, I have to treat it as a serious personal attack, since I'm heavily against Communism that made horrible especially Hungary's fate among others and personally the Communists persecuted my family as well."
Some of my ancestors were also maltreated during the communist era. What's your point? Why do you think I'm using the Soviets as an example, because I agree with the discredited Kremlin line? The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics; the arguments that are now almost universally ridiculed and dismissed. If you'd like a more contemporaneous example, take the Venezuelan government. My assessment stands. I apologise for nothing. Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms.
Regards. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry,
your generalized examples have no analogies to what happened here thus reflecting to any of them (Maduro government in Venezuela & Cambodian genocide) is out of scope here. As explained also, yes, you tried to be collaborative in the end, but the problem was most even many of your complete additions lacked necessary neutrality, i.e. you added an information, but you ignored the causes, thus the for the reader you suggested a negative outcome blamed on one party, but you ignored the reason and preliminary actions of the other party, thus the info you placed became one-sided, even when you summarized from one source, meaning you investigated not the subject entirely thus it harmed WP:NPOV (this is one example, but the talk page is full with all the cases, with professional explanations that should be clear, etc.).
I disagree with that, politics and their categorization and sensitivity is differing in various states, cultures, continents, we simply cannot make such analogies, however, in Europe having a rich history as well with far-right parties we may easily recognize something that is far-right or not, or just accused to be far-right, since we live it in our skin, etc.
Yes, but all of these media outlets you listed are tradititonal critics on any right-wing politics and many times their opinion an sumarizations are fay beyond on a common sense, and I did not object them to present in the relevant section, but changing because of that the party ideology is weird, since not the media outlets decide or dictate party ideologies.
The fact you ancestors have been also maltreated, does not redempt you from ad hominem personal attacks, an I am surprised you don't see my point. Why would I think you'd agree with the Kremlin line or anything else (how does it came what you may think or not, I cannot judge that, I can judge only what you describe)? NO way, I refuse this again - and I can speak obviously my own behalf - NO, my arguments are not by any means same of any "Communist regimes" arguments and you commited a very big mistake insisting this again, since you again try to deteriorate from the point! I did not say or agumented that would not be true, or would not be factual or neutral (while the Communist regimes have generally twisted information, lied, manipulated and caused a horror to the people), thus you assesment does NOT stand, it is your personal and mistaken opinion, a shameful and offensive one. It is not may fault that there are some media opinions that have overexaggerated opinions that are many times far from the reality (and may be "universally ridiculed and dismissed" as well in some particular cases and the Venezuelan Government and Fidesz have zero connection to each other, cannot be compared by any means)
"I apologise for nothing." -> Unfortunately this a huge problem, if you don't see what you did wrong.
"Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." -> This you should address to yourself, when you started to deteriorate from the topic and create a pseudo West (East?, North? South?) conflict and with an unprofessional way you made a horrible accusation, insisting a false analogie with the Communists. This is definately not as "legitimate criticism", since all my arguments are standing and are factual and struggling for ultimate neutrality.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
I do not feel that I needed to ferret out and present a government response to every accusation made by sources widely held to be reputable to maintain NPOV.
As to the Soviet comparison, I was using a prominent historical example to illustrate that governments deflecting legitimate internal and external criticism by claiming reports to be motivated by an alien and hostile ideology has precedence, and that such arguments are highly spurious. The point was - just to reiterate - rhetorical, presenting it as me casting aspersions on your character is either a misinterpretation or a purposeful misrepresentation. I thus do not feel the need to apologise. As far as I understand, you also argue that my comparison is improper because you believe that the Soviet regime was bad, and you do not believe the same for the current Hungarian government. It is exactly because the Soviet state was regarded as far-left that I used the comparison to illustrate the disingenuity of your argument.
Just to point out the obvious, you compare different things that are similar in some aspects, not things that are exactly the same. That's the point of comparisons.
Since you've taken punitive action against me, I hope the issue will be rendered resolved if I am absolved during the process.
I regret the devolution of this discussion. Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, especially that has no conenction to any "government response", if you add information on the tensed situation with Ukraine, but you add nothing of the root causes, as well, if you quote from a source that does not say accuarately what the party or any of it's member really said, but a twisted version and not a "government response" would correct it, but we have sources of the original statement uncut, etc.
Your "Soviet Comparison" is falied since I did not lie/twisted information/became blind/or maintained propaganda, but I represented the neutral, factual and accuare position. Your deduction is again flawed, since I never did any comment on your person, I just commented of the activity/happenings, because I've learned in my WP experience so far "the best is to comment on content, not editors", that you seem not to understand or recognize and with a good faith I did that. Here there is no West or East, North or South, there is an open debate between two political sides and their media, that is not uniform by geographical terms and your mistaken example of the Soviets is anyway a boomerang and not any means would hold to any of my demonstrations, but better on such partuclar twist or overexaggerations, that I pinpointed, anyway such deterioration is harmful but what is striking, they simply does not hold. Excuse, me I have an experience with WP:Civility, thus I don't have any "purposeful mininterpretation", simply you did a mistake by this accusation and failed analogy (even if you believe in it, however it raises deep concerns if you don't recognize it's untenability...).
As far as I understand, you also argue that my comparison is improper because you believe that the Soviet regime was bad, and you do not believe the same for the current Hungarian government. It is exactly because the Soviet state was regarded as far-left that I used the comparison to illustrate the disingenuity of your argument. -> this is again a fallacious argumentation, you understand the things improperly. Again, my argumentations have zero analogy to the Communist regimes, as explained above. Secondly, nothing depends on "my belief", since you presented some material, and I pinpointed the inaccuracy or POV issues with them. I have zero involvement of what you "believe" or not "believe", because it HAS NO CONNECTION TO THE SUBJECT.
Just to point out the obvious, you compare different things that are similar in some aspects, not things that are exactly the same. -> I may have said this to you, also by your current argumentation. You (try to) argue with A or the real point or subject would be B. I argue B and as well add C, but you continue your deduction with A and their derivatives and try to join AB or AC, etc.
Since you've taken punitive action against me -> I did not take any "punitive actions" necessarily, since you did not understand/recognize what you did wrong and the weight how you did your serious accusations that is heavily disgusting and and offensive insult to me, I hope the community will be give you some inputs on this that you might consider per wikietiquette. I am sorry if you don't "feel to apologize" and you still don't see why you went by far. I also don't like this discussion evolved to this, honestly...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC))


@KIENGIR:, How about Poland's Law and Justice party or Slovak National Party? They are placed on far-right by foreign media. Are they wrong too? Also My country's major media is placing Fidesz on the far-right.[1] (JoongAng Ilbo is major right-wing newspaper in south korea) Are my country's media is also traditionaly critical on right-wing politics or Fidesz? (Jeff6045 (talk)

References

Jeff6045 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Jeff, as I told you, I am experienced enough to enter only those issues I have the ncessary knkowledge or expertise. I know that Law and Justice is as well got heavy critics, but I am not familiar with all the details on that level, that I may stand for a position, thus I let this to those who have. Regarding the Slovak SNS I have more information because directly/indirectly it's politics is pointing as well Hungarian affairs. It was surely a pure far-right nationalist party under Ján Slota and some subsequent leaders, as I see nowadays they try to maintain a more moderate form and as well eliminated members of the old nationalist stuff, as they are in colation with one interethnic party where Hungarians are as well represented. Beyond this, their current stance I did not met with such high nationalist scandals, however there was a current issue of punishing to sing any foreign national anthem on some sport events (including Hungarian), but it is said that has been corrected.
If your country's media is placing Fidesz far-right, that is a serious problem, since Fidesz gave the first female Roma MEP, they are with alliance with Roma organizations, they was the first to place the Holocaust Commemoration Day in Hungary and they declared zero tolerance on Anti-Semitism and banned and far-right movement under their reign even to march or commemorate such events, etc. As I told you, even the Hungarian opposition who openly making the harshest critics agains Fidesz does not treat the party far-right, because it is not true all the people would laugh who live in Hungary and people can make wise comparisons wha tmeans really far-right, since they have a first hand experience not just in the interwar periods, but also recent politics (like Jobbik which after some turnaround now tries to show a more moderate standpoint).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:, I'm very curious that you are even not familiar with Slovak national party or poland's law and justice, how do you know all western mainstream media(such as NYT, Washington post or guardian), is against your party? Also not only major western media is placing Fidesz but also major mideast media such as Al Jazeera is placing Fidesz on the far-right. In addition I will add description to article that the party is placing on the far-right by majority of mainstream media unless you give us the reliable sources that the party is not far-right. Please leave reliable academic sources that describes the pary is not far-right with specific reasons. Or else Your actions on Wikipedia article can be considered as Vandalism.

@Jeff6045:,
Your argumentation is problematic.
1. I did not say that I am not familiar with SNS
2. I don't see how the thorough knowledge on Poland's party would have any connection to your assertion: how do you know all western mainstream media(such as NYT, Washington post or guardian), is against your party
3. You assertion is false, I never said such like all western mainstream media..is against your party (and I even cannot properly interpret what you'd mean by my party??)
4. In addition I will add description to article that the party is placing on the far-right by majority of mainstream media unless you give us the reliable sources that the party is not far-right -> Please refrain from editing the article such way until the discussion is ongoing, since we have a current WP:CONSENSUS and you did not build a new one yet. On the other hand reliable sources are already present in the article, and it is quite odd you claim for sources to deny something that does not even hold, but we may investigate more sources on this. (anyway you may add anything to the top of the "Ideology and policies" and "Criticism and controversies" section per current consensus.
5. Please read our policies better, none of my activities in WP have ever been Vandalism, you should anyway get familiar more with WP:NPOV, I have almost 9 years experience, so please...
6. I am sorry you completely disregarded in your answer the facts I listed that contradicts being the party "far-right", however these facts cannot be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
KIENGIR, I've further delineated my reasoning for the argument on the Incidents noticeboard. Since I have a feeling that we may not arrive at an agreement on this subject, I'll close the subject and let the other wikipedians interested in the issue judge its merits.
Just to reiterate, we're discussing whether the party should be designated as right-wing to far-right in the infobox (and potentially the lede). Discussion about the Criticism section is not relevant.
Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Jay,
I see, however there is no problem with any discussion until it stays in a moderate manner, with the necessary respect and time to everyone to express themselves, even there are issues that my be hard to resolved or it would be long and time consuming as well, but that happens here often. I consider the Criticism and other appropriate sections relevant since there we may put such info that is discussed here right now, but it seems forgotten and makes that mistaken feeling like some information could not be added to the article...the question is where and how, etc. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
Of course. As said, I may have been too forceful in some of my arguments, however, I find that when a whole swath of sources is regarded as suspect/illegitimate and there is no agreement where we can find facts, honest intellectual discussion can become impossible and instead devolve into an exchange of prejudices and opinions.
Regarding the Criticism section ... We must reach some consensus regarding some basic facts that may be contentious. Otherwise, we may as well not have ideology/political position listed in the infobox and we end up moving everything and anything contentious into the Criticisms section. However, as it stands, while you may consider the far-right designation problematic, others may view the right-wing designation the same.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If I may add my thoughts, since I was the one who created this section and wanted to reopen the discussion again. My original arguments were based on independent news-sources. This was rightfully contested by KIENGIR, as these sources have a liberal bias, and are disputed by the Fidesz party. I would instead like to argue from a different line of thinking based on academic and voter placement of the party on the ideological spectrum, as it is well understood that voters can accurately place parties on a relative Left-Right spectrum.[1]

Let us look at the Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems (CSES), which released Module 5 on Hungary on 21-May-2019.[2] According to the Macro report, (6a) one expert designated Fidesz as a 9 on the 0-10 Left-Right spectrum, where the range 9-10 classifies a far-right party. In (6c), Fidesz was also designated as a very populist (9) party on a 0-10 Populist spectrum.

Looking at OpenDemocracy's analysis of Hungary's parties, which uses data from the European Social Survey,[3] we see that there has been a far-right shift between 2015 to 2017. In 2015, "18.3% of respondents who felt closest to Fidesz were far-right" while "in 2017, 28.7% of Fidesz supporters were far-right". Moreover, at the end of the analysis they summarise, "looking at these numbers, it is clear that there is a rise in far-right support for Fidesz and a decline of far-right support for Jobbik, although it is still substantial. When comparing overall numbers, in the 2017 data 77.6% of far-right respondents supported Fidesz and 19.4% Jobbik". One should be able to uncontroversially extrapolate that this trend has continued to 2019, and that the Fidesz party has become more far-right.

Hence, without relying on disputed liberal-biased media sources, and only considering expert and voter views, we see a marked increase in far-right identification, and it should be uncontroversial to label the Fidesz party as Right-Wing to Far-Right.

-MWKwiki (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jou, Willy; Dalton, Russell. "Left-Right Orientations and Voting Behavior". Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Oxford. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
  2. ^ "CSES Module 5: 2016-2021". CSES. CSES. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
  3. ^ Kondor, Katherine. "The Hungarian paradigm shift: how right-wing are Fidesz supporters?". openDemocracy. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
Jay,
the fact I described a phenomenon of some sources being inaccurate and having an exaggerated tone have nothing wrong if this is the fact, and regarding our arguments it is pretty sharply goes into the details regarding facts, I disagree it would be hard to grasp what a politician said or what happened in the reality with a case, etc. Our discussion could not evolve to two prejudices (at least from my behalf), since I concentrated on the facts (see any other content issue we discussed), about the ideology and this designation's "fairness" we've made longer discussion that included more "philosophy", but the root has been also there is there any facts that would support this.
I do believe that party ideology (infobox) are decided by the party and it's members. On the other hand, in the article about the "ideology & policies" or "criticism" anything may be added, but we should not mix the two. Yes there may be more considerations of the people, but facts canot be ignored (I may say for some orange is looking yellow, or others it is looking green, but we cannot deny it is yellow, if it is yellow).
MWKwiki,
Thank you for your comment. I fully agree with the populist designation and metric. Regarding the other spectrum not, because from the so-called six anti-Semitism, anti-Roma and similar should significantly increase and at 9 or 10 it should be almost Nazism.
It is true that the party preference in first and second place is quite analogous among voters - especially on which party's supporters being disappointed and change their support to another party, etc., it is an interetsing research of the political examinators - but also Jobbik supporters voted in mass amount to left side parties against Fidesz, moreover now officially all the left parties made coalition and run common candidates with Jobbik...then we may conclude as well the left parties would have a significant voters of t hefar-right, thus they becase as well far-right? Party ideologies would be determined by the voters? How? If somebody disappointed in a party and vote another, would it necessarily mean he did not change mind as well? If I have liberal party, i.e. and surpisingly in an election also those supporter chose me that were a supporter of another party or ideology, but because of other reasons (lack of chance of their party, or I am sympathethic, or I am treated less worse than another party,etc. various reasons) would make my liberal party i.e. far-left/fair right? Would my ideology or the party's ideology change by this? No...(KIENGIR (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
Hi KIENGIR,
Apologies, but I found it very difficult to follow your response.
"Regarding the other spectrum not, because from the so-called six anti-Semitism, anti-Roma and similar should significantly increase and at 9 or 10 it should be almost Nazism." I can't say I understand the comment on anti-Semitism or anti-Roma views. I don't think that's relevant. For the Left-Right spectrum, we have a range from 0-10, where 0-1 is far-left views, while 9-10 are far-right views. That is all the spectrum is saying and there is no comment on Nazism. As I cited, both experts and voters seem to place the Fidesz party around this range of the spectrum.
"but also Jobbik supporters voted in mass amount to left side parties against Fidesz, moreover now officially all the left parties made coalition and run common candidates with Jobbik...then we may conclude as well the left parties would have a significant voters of t hefar-right, thus they becase as well far-right?" I can't say I understand this comment much either. The openDemocracy analysis only states that Jobbik has taken on a more centrist image. The fact that left parties have voted with Jobbik against Fidesz does not mean they are far-right, only that they are in united opposition to Fidesz's policies. Two people/parties can agree for different reasons.
"Party ideologies would be determined by the voters? How? If somebody disappointed in a party and vote another, would it necessarily mean he did not change mind as well?" Voters are asked to place the parties on the 0-10 Left-Right spectrum. These details can be found in the analysis I cited, and if you wish to further investigate, can look at the methodology of the original survey. It is not my duty to explain this. I have provided my citations.
"If I have liberal party, i.e. and surpisingly in an election also those supporter chose me that were a supporter of another party or ideology, but because of other reasons (lack of chance of their party, or I am sympathethic, or I am treated less worse than another party,etc. various reasons) would make my liberal party i.e. far-left/fair right? Would my ideology or the party's ideology change by this? No..." I do not follow this counter-argument. This is a misunderstanding of the methodology used in the survey. To make sure we are on the same page, can you explain the methodology used in the survey/analysis and clearly describe your objections?
There is a consensus among editors (as pointed out by Jay Hodec), consensus among independent news media (some of which have a liberal bias, and a South Korean news site with a conservative / right-wing bias), experts identifying the party as far-right, and consensus among voters identifying the party as right-wing to far-right. The major contrary evidence being directly from the Fidesz party. For this reason, I am going to change the article to Right-Wing to Far-Right. The burden-of-proof is no longer on me / the other editors. It is now a matter of others to find countervailing evidence - contemporary experts and voters who do not identify Fidesz as right-wing to far-right.
-MWKwiki (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
MWKwiki,
- Far-right views include as well Anti-Semitism and anti-Roma sentiments, support of Nazi and racial ideologies, as this is wholly or partially the charachter of the far-right, as well historically, thus in that metric between 6-10 these qualifiers should increase and at then it should end around Nazism.
- But your argument earlier you concluded in ina way that the so-called shift of far-right supporters have been transferred from Jobbik to Fidesz, now you argue that Jobbik supporters who support others parties would not increase teh far-right factor of those parties, but just a united opposition? Like this, also the other supporters who left the party may be considered chosing Fidesz because of he united opposition again the left-side parties....
-Anyway, you should give explanations since we are deep in the subject and we have to carefully evaluate the accuracy of the analysis.
-So again, trying ot be shorter, just because of some voters are judged to be far-right because they left a far-right party and chose and other party they would volte, according to your deduction why would imply that the new party would became then far-right? Because above, you denied this if they chose left-side parties, but if they chose Fidesz...don't you see the contradiction?
- There is no consensus between editors, just a few, I don't know which "experts" identify the party as far-right. You should not make any change until the end of the discussion without building new consensus and you should give a time also to others to express they points, since into this discussion only those circle have been pinged who are supporting one side.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
However, the sources you presented does not qualify the party's ideology to be far-right. Just one quote: It must be remembered that these are self-placements on the scale, meaning that respondents identify themselves in this way (as opposed to being labelled by an external source).. The article is making speculations of voters, but it has no connection to the party's ideology.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
I am growing exasperated of this discussion.
On anti-Semitism, this is associated with Nazism. Nazism is a far-right ideology. Nazism implies far-right. Far-right does not necessarily imply Nazism. Fidesz being far-right does not mean it is a neo-nazi party. Moreover, Fidesz has been called anti-Semitic for its Soros conspiracies.
Jobbik and the position of the left-wing opposition parties is irrelevant to the placement of the Fidesz party on the ideological spectrum. I don't care to argue this point.
The level of evidence required to prove this claim has become extraordinarily high. What evidence is required to confirm the claim that Fidesz is right-wing to far-right?
"So again, trying ot be shorter, just because of some voters are judged to be far-right because they left a far-right party and chose and other party they would volte, according to your deduction why would imply that the new party would became then far-right? Because above, you denied this if they chose left-side parties, but if they chose Fidesz...don't you see the contradiction?" Voters have become more right-wing in their views. It is irrelevant who has joined or left the party. Voters have identified Fidesz as becoming more right-wing. Please read the openDemocracy article.
There is a consensus between editors, (@Jay Hodec: @Kocka78: @MWKwiki: @2600:1700:ec50:b070:2c2:c6ff:fe3e:571a: @WyGolf: @삭은사과: @Blue-Haired Lawyer: @Jeff6045:) vs (KIENGIR and New00100). The experts' views are valid - I have verified their credentials; you can independently do that too. To call them "experts" is an enormous disservice to them and sets an unbelievably high standard.
"The article is making speculations of voters, but it has no connection to the party's ideology." There is no speculation going on. Please read the analysis.
-MWKwiki (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
MWKwiki,
I am growing exasperated of this discussion -> you should remain calm at any means.
- Nazism is just one example, but in the spectrum of far right the more far you go, you necessarily touch wholly or partially or end up like so, to the core of far-right ideologies that include extremes views including heavy racism based on Anti-Semitism and similar. The Israeli-goverment defended Fidesz and Soros was not tried because of his origin/religion, what his activity regarding some other matters.
-Excuse me, you argued on the shift of the Jobbik voters and implied something becuase of it, but seems at only one direction.
-How you may see commensurable the far-right deisgnation fo a party the declared zero-tolerance on Anti-Semitism are in alliance with Roma people (having prominent Roma members and MEP, as well Jewish ones), banned all far-right marching and activities of such organizations, introduced the first the Holocaust commemoration Day, etc. Do you understand what "far-right" really means or designates? Read ideologies about Nazism, Hungarism, i.e.? Fidesz would be far-right because he does not support mass-migration and a have a different concept than the European United States? At the time Hungary in the past years granted status for around 12 000 people who wehe refugges/migrants but they legally went through to the reception process?
-Voters have become more right-wing in their views. -> It has no connection to the party's ideology. Voters have identified Fidesz as becoming more right-wing.-> Voters would decide the party's ideology? Why don't you put these stuff in the ideology and policies section?
- I have to inform you "@WyGolf:" is a sockpuppet...did you read WP:CONSENSUS, that all the participants have to agree in order to build that? Did you realize only editors supporting one side have been pinged into this discussion, do you think it's fair and neutral? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
Your comments are becoming frighteningly hard to read. Please spend more than 5 seconds writing an indecipherable response. It's a chore figuring out what you're trying to say!
"Voters would decide the party's ideology? Why don't you put these stuff in the ideology and policies section?" I never said that voters decide a party's ideology. I said that voters can accurately place a party on a left-right spectrum. Please read the Oxford article I cited. I have not once said that voters decide political ideology. In fact, most voters do not have a sophisticated framework to assess or identify ideology. Despite this, voters are capable of correctly identifying a party's position on the left-right spectrum. This is well understood in political science. Moreover, experts are in agreement with the voters' identification.
Let's now wait for the other editors to respond. We may need to submit a Dispute Resolution Request if there is still disagreement.
-MWKwiki (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will spend more time to phrase my sentences, but also others should follow wikietiquette that in a serious discussion we DON'T make instant modifications in the middle of it, but ultimately respect WP:BRD. On the other hand, still how especially voters perpestive determine the party's ideology? Their stance is just an assessment, point of view, while the party can declare his own views or their actions would qualify it is as well. To the others who will join the discussion: the debate is not about that the any sources presented by others, or by MWKwiki could not be presented the article, the question is WHERE. Currently you may add anything you presented here into the Ideologies and policies or Criticism and Controversies section.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

@MWKwiki "This was rightfully contested by KIENGIR, as these sources have a liberal bias, and are disputed by the Fidesz party. [...] Hence, without relying on disputed liberal-biased media sources [...]" Almost every report of impropriety/negative description is denied or disputed by those political forces accused. It is also problematic when we begin ascribing political bias to media organisations and then concluding all coverage must be contaminated and is thus unreliable. One could just as soon argue that e.g. the New York Times has a rightward bias, citing everything from the erroneous reporting on the WMDs in the runup to the Iraq War, to the erroneous report regarding the burning of the aid trucks in Venezuela, to the incident where an editor made an article about Bernie Sanders' policy achievements more negative after publication. A similar recent example is Washington Post's "fact check" about Sanders' healthcare claim that declared it completely false despite it being based on a conservative estimate by a scholar that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. We all understand that media is not always correct, and not even objective and unbiased. However, as I have pointed out before, by this metric, all critical reports in US media about the Soviet Union would have to be disregarded in favour of - or at least presented as equally autoritative - as denials in Pravda and Izvestia. The bottom line is that these media organisations are widely regarded as trustworthy in their investigative reporting, and any accusations of systemic and/or purposeful false reporting should be regarded as highly suspicious, with the immense burden of proof on the accuser. "[...] and only considering expert and voter views [...]" I'm sure there are those that would dispute the veracity of these reports also ...

"I do believe that party ideology (infobox) are decided by the party and it's members." I can't think of any major political party that self-identifies as far-right. We must therefore rely on prevailing opinion from sources generally regarded as trustworthy and reliable.

@KIENGIR You seem to be very confident in your ability to discern what is objective fact and what is not. I find it difficult to argue with people who are certain that they command the ultimate truth about reality. Everyone knows that the world is a complicated place, and that there are almost always conflicting data and interpretations of these data. Truth is hard. Take your example. If you send me a picture of an orange you may be confident that it's "orange" and only orange. But what if someone else looking at it is colour blind? What if he's high on acid? What if we examine the image very closely and find it is actually made up of minuscule red and green dots?

I hope more editors weigh in on both sides (though I hope with concise statements). If we are unable to arive at a prevailing consensus (this does not mean unanimity, as per Wikipedia:Consensus), we can request outside help or declare a vote.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay,
to your fisrt pharagraph you adressed to MWKwiki: that's why we don't generalize issues but check one-by one every case, as they are particular. In every corner of the world, some issues of weight, evaluation, tradition and sensitiviy may differ. Hence every instant we have to properly draw and summarize sources given due, weight, accuracy, etc. and evalute and finally place them properly. The world does not have just two poles or just two opposing sides. You don't have to worry that because of the case Fidesz something will affect Venezuela, Puerto Rico or Macau, or any influence/precedence, because WP is not generalizing in this way, every topic, article has it's own scope and the indiviual possibility to reach the best, appropriate form.
second: I agree with "from sources generally regarded as trustworthy and reliable", but also properly identify and summarize their content and place them in the appropriate section, giving no chance of harming neutrality and converge to the most factual approach possible. The qualifiers of trustworthy and reliable should also hold to the content, even generally on some more complex subjects.
Jay, yes this is my particular identity, devotion and profession (but I don't say I'd know any ultimate truth, unless it is not proved or would not be a fact), since always, I really like facts and dislike the opposite, and well I am a precisity/accuracy enthusiast as well. I've always hated manipulation or bad aim twisting, shall anyone the subject. The most hurting for me if I am accused to be favor any side or questioning my good faith and neutraily, although I am an easily decipherable spcecimen, almost like a machine. This anyone who will know me properly in time not really will surpise on me and may expect the same, shall anything be the subject. If anyone would be color blind/or acid would be high, that has to be indicated and discussed finding the best (accuarate, factual) solution. The target is to interpolate maximum accuracy possible, as you may read on my personal page.
Yes we should wait others to chime in as well. If in a considerable time it won't happen anyway I'll as well invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary). In case we still could not agree on something final, then we may consider outside help or any aother arbitration possible. Give it a time, I think approx. after maximum two weeks there is not an entire solution, then we should use the latter mentioned tools. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
As noted, Fidesz espouses some views regarded as part of the far-right spectrum, but is classically right-wing in others. One could argue whether it is adequately extreme for it to be pervailingly far-right, however, at this point, were discussing the right-wing to far-right designation, though this may be shifted either way in the future if the party moves or cements itself in either position. Let me just reiterate that this designation is already used for all comparable political parties I can think of.
Antisemitism and antiziganism are certainly components of some far-right ideologies, but these are not prerequisites. Furthermore, Nazism is not the only flavour of far-rightism. The far-right is often also characterised by hostility to ethnic, religious, ideological, and cultural pluralism, historical revisionism, ultranationalism/ethnonationalism, authoritarianism, hostility to democratic institutions, etc. All these are made manifest both in rethoric and policy by the Fidesz government, therefore warranting a "... to far-right" designation, at least. It should also be noted that even if antisemitic and antiziganic policies are not made explicit, these can be put in place implicitly through promotion of a pure ethnic state, either through indoctrination/compulsive and intrusive state ideology, suppression of independent cultural or religious institutions, constriction of minority rights, etc.
I would agree that voter opinion is not definitive (sometimes e.g. left-wing candidates have right-wing support due to a certain policy position they feel strongly about, or due to tactical reasons (take the example of Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang in the US Democratic primary)), but can certainly be suggestive.
I pinged the aforementioned users because all had independently attempted to change the designation, but had been told that prevailing editor consensus had already been established against this (which I find not to be the case). They had not been encouraged to discuss this on the talk page, and may have relented due to a mistaken belief the issue is already settled due to an ethos argument from opposing editors. I'm hesitant to ping New00100 due to his consistent flaunting of decorum and harsh rhetoric which likely violates several Wiki guidelines and may have already warranted administrative sanctions.
Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my quarrel with MWKwiki. The issue is that the Fidesz government has reportedly almost entirely subsumed the media in Hungary. Therefore, it may be necessary to almost entirely rely on foreign sources for objective reporting about the state of the Hungarian politics. All this is of course denied by the Hungarian government who argue that outside media should not be trusted since they either misunderstand its internal affairs, are swindled by the internal opposition, or are themselves biased. Which may be true, or, more likely, just a crafty slight of hand which has rich precedence with authoritarian governments (again, communist states would never admit that internal media were entirely subservient to the state in their reporting). Relying on pro-government media or party member statements is thus inherently problematic if done in an attempt to achieve NPOV.
I think I've never accused you of of bias or ulterior motives, and in fact do not have reason to believe your edits are motivated in any such fashion. However, I do think some of your stances are not based on correct/factual assessments, even if held in good faith.
I do not think it wise that editors invite other new outside editors to comment individually. If editors that have hitherto participated in the dispute cannot arrive at agreement, I think it proper to seek outside council through the proper "official" channels.
Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Jay, you make a very good point on media sources. My aim was not to claim they are useless or untrustworthy, just that the sources are disputed and I wanted to present what is more 'objective' evidence.
It seems that editors are arguing over what defines 'far-right'. However, we are not experts. It is not our role to define what 'far-right' is or is not. KIENGIR, you cannot accept the expert identification of Fidesz as a very populist party, but reject their identification of it being far-right. You don't get to accept one and dismiss the other out-of-hand. That's not how this works.
There are real experts who have - Yes, they are real experts. Check their qualifications rather than just dismissing them because they don't confirm your views. There are real experts who place Fidesz as far-right. That is an indisputable fact.
We should also rely on expert-analysis. Ideology and placement on the political spectrum are different things - read the damn Oxford article I cited. I provided evidence that voters - who voted for the Fidesz party in this analysis - have identified it as more far-right. This is further evidence to support the claim that the party has moved right. Voter identification of party political position is a well-established means of determining party alignment - yes it is, did you read the Oxford article?
KIENGIR, it is not your role to dismiss these experts and the expert-analysis. It is not your role to argue for your own definition of 'far-right', nor is it my role or Jay's role. It is determining what a variety of sources claim. In this case, media sources, experts, and voters all agree that the party has moved right, and that Fidesz can be identified as far-right. Not your or my definition of 'far-right' - no one cares how we are defining 'far-right'.
-MWKwiki (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe internationally respected journalistic organisations are objective sources. In this particular case, they would use the label "far right" if they have previously consulted experts or if the designation is widely acknowledged as accurate. It is important to note that all articles go through an editorial process to ensure all information contained within is fitting.
As you've seen, the issue is not that the use of the term is disputed because of a disagreement over the inherent trustworthiness of one type of source over another that can simply be remedied by presenting more evidence/other types of evidence to surpass the burden of proof, but due to disagreement about beliefs regarding what the term itself means and whether anyone that uses it to describe Fidesz can be trustworthy. This is a fundamentally different disagreement. This brings us back to the Soviet example I gave; it is important to point out that the arguments advanced by opponents of the designation are inherently fallacious/disingenuous. The burden of proof set is impossible to surpass because it is uniquely high (and, in my opinion, unjustifiably so) compared to all comparable instances I can think off, basically non-existent. Ceding this point is a disservice to our argument, since it implicitly acknowledges that media sources are inherently less reliable; if this hold, most information contained in the article can be brought under question. Because the same arguments that have already been made while arguing against the media sources could apply to scholarly sources:
  "The problem is all of these trials are coming from only those news and media concerns, individuals who in the past eight years as well attacked Fidesz and the Hungarian Government, many times with groundless or exaggerated accusations with a huge double measure comparing to other states where the same or worse happened, but just because they did not share conservative right-wing views and disagreed on more high-level political questions, they were not attacked at the same manner."
  "Sorry, the problem is regardless some media goups are officially regarded "independent", there are those groups who consistently attacking/labeling/accusing the party with some designations that does not hold (regardless what it is, if there is a chance it is done, even if the epithes are varying...mostly the left side and media groups nationally/internationally who traditionally criticizing and labeling right wing parties, or their policies (even if the right/left designation in some other countries have no interpretation based on different political heritage, but the direction and idea have common directions)...Hungary and it's government is recently a target mainly beucase of it's anti-immigration policy and opposition to the some European policies (European United States vs. Federalism of strong national states, etc. in scope of the forthcoming European Parlamentiary Elections). Fidesz factually has no connection to any far-right agenda, not even commited such. Thus such opinons may only represented as an opinion of some circles." - KIENGIR
  "[...] the opponents of the governing party make every effort to maintain defamation, thus every such attempts should be reverted, Wikipedia cannot be the battleground of the recent pre-election campaigns, shall it be Fidesz or any other party." - KIENGIR
So, in short, the domestic political opposition is attempting to besmirch Fidesz with such accusations, and outside media and experts either buy into the anti-Fidesz propaganda due to a lack of knowledge about the country, are in cahoots with the domestic opposition, or their opposition is inherently ideological in nature. The argument can apply to any domestic or foreign "expert" just as soon, and before you know it, we'll be talking about whether the experts may harbour political views at odds with Fidesz. It must be rejected outright.
Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, yes. Thank you, Jay. I agree.
Let our position be this: the consensus among media outlets, plus arguments from experts and expert-analysis, should be the determining factor of the party's political position. In this case, media outlets have independently described the party as far-right, there are experts that identify Fidesz as far-right, and lastly voter surveys increasingly identify the party as far-right, on a level comparable to the far-right Jobbik party.
The position of KIENGIR, to my understanding, is that 'far-right' implies anti-semitism and Nazism, and that the Fidesz party is not a Nazi party, so is not 'far-right'. Moreover, we cannot trust independent media sources, as they are biased. We cannot trust "experts" and it is irrelevant as to how voters place Fidesz (or other parties) on the political spectrum.
To solve this disagreement, KIENGIR proposes that we, "invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary)." To me, this is equivalent to saying, "I will not accept any outside sources or experts. I want trustworthy Wikipedia editors who understand the Hungarian political context to determine this."
To me, this resolution is nonsensical. The trustworthiness of an expert or source is irrelevant as to whether they are a Wikipedia editor or not. It is a genetic fallacy and a form of moving the goalposts. A kind of "nuh-uh, your experts are bad and I can't be bothered to verify them or do research myself. Your media sources and voter analysis is irrelevant too. Let's wait for Wikipedia experts (who are somehow more authoritative/reliable?) to take notice and chip in." The obvious rebuttal is this: if you are going to dismiss our evidence/sources, why should we not dismiss yours?
-MWKwiki (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur.

BTW, a relevant bit of information regarding far-right voter share may be the following: Orban courts far-right voters ahead of 2018 vote (Reuters).

I had the same thought about KIENGIR's suggestion. I don't find there to be a dearth of English-language sources on the topic, or that Hungarian ones would be any more reliable. Anecdotal expertise cannot be relevant in wiki if it cannot be followed up by tangible sources.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It is very funny that KIENGIR opposes foreign media's sources, that describe the party is far-right due to their lack of understanding of hungarian politics. But actually temporay sources on wikipedia that describes Fidesz as right-wing are all from foreign media.(The Economist:UK, The world and all its voices: France, news.com.au: Australia). In addition I think quoting hungary's media to describe Fidesz's political spectrum is ridiculous. The media in hungary is obviously divided whether they support Fidiesz or not. We can not expect rational sources from them. I think the best reliable sources would be foreign media which is not from western country.(such as Al Jazeera) (talk)Jeff6045 06:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I will respond to everybody, however since a lot of comments cumulated, will quote the respective issue/pharagraph to besure what I am reacting to:
The issue is that the Fidesz government has reportedly almost entirely subsumed the media in Hungary. -> Entirely false, the left-oriented/run media prevailed traditionally in Hungary around 70%-80%, nowadays the right oriented media arrived near to 50%, thus it may be treated near equal. Jay's conclusion is again drawn from distibuted and twisted info, that would identify the right-oriented media's expansion as a complete "subsume", although it it just relevantly expanded but did not reach majority. Hence Jay's conlclusion is entirely false (Therefore, it may be necessary to almost entirely rely on foreign sources for objective reporting about the state of the Hungarian politics.), since with this practically he wishes to completely exclude Hungarian sources, that is a serious NPOV violation, on the other hand a full stigmatization of an entire nation (an he's coming recurrently with "Soviet" examples)...
ll this is of course denied by the Hungarian government who argue that outside media should not be trusted since they either misunderstand its internal affairs, are swindled by the internal opposition, or are themselves biased. -> Nope, the government does not deny the expansion, but of course it is fake they would control everything, since the so-called oppositon media, radio, press, televison are exact, measurable along with their audience. Jay, believing his argumentation to be true and fair, makes again a conclusion with that he again makes controversial and stigmatizing analogies -> (again, communist states would never admit that internal media were entirely subservient to the state in their reporting)...Such things are not good, if you start any argumentation from a biased premise, of course, as I experienced many times, you don't have all the necessary information, hence we are discussing, that's why I told you you should be much more entirely research the situation on your own, really neutrally and you cannot ignore any side regarding this, since this is the fundamentum of objectivity.
I do think some of your stances are not based on correct/factual assessments -> You may think anything that you want, I disagree, facts talk, I described my philosophy above - i don't repeat it - my correctness may not any means questioned.
do not think it wise that editors invite other new outside editors to comment individually. If editors that have hitherto participated in the dispute cannot arrive at agreement, I think it proper to seek outside council through the proper "official" channels. -> Again a serious NPOV violation, that I am amazed, as in the earlier case from Jay, since after he pinged in all the editors supporting his stance (even a sockpuppet!!) (and just and only those, ignoring the others who as well particpated but not on his support) on this issue, he is against pinging in editors that are neutral...my jaws falling down!
MWKwiki experts cannot be biased -> nominally not, however there may be some. I checked the Oxford article, your deduction of the far-right is considerable, however it means in a way the complete re-definiton of the meaning, since especially what we associate with it, implies my description and that interesting (?) situation may follow that such parties are put on a whole or partial common platform, that anyway largely differ in an intastisbfiable manner from each other on mainstream ideologies, that I treat dangerous, since opposing sides often accuse each other with weird and overexaggerated accusations trying to identify to the other party off-color.
To solve this disagreement, KIENGIR proposes that we, "invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary)." To me, this is equivalent to saying, "I will not accept any outside sources or experts. I want trustworthy Wikipedia editors who understand the Hungarian political context to determine this." -> A ardent example of a huge logical fallacy of yours, since I never said that I would not accept any outside sources or experts, I kindly ask you that do not make such amaterurish statements because it is really on the edge of defamation in a negative manner, on the other hand, if you wish to exclude/reject editors who are understanding and knowing at first hand that outsiders may not would be again a serious NPOV violation, that with a good faith I could only assume of lack of DR experience...regarding this on the other hand, the same would stand like I told to Jay in this manner
Let's wait for Wikipedia experts (who are somehow more authoritative/reliable?) to take notice and chip in." The obvious rebuttal is this: if you are going to dismiss our evidence/sources, why should we not dismiss yours? -> I did not say experts, please read back what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth I did not say in the future, thank you. Again a huge logical fallacy, since what you claim has not any connection of the premise, neither the rebuttal ot it, furthermore I did not dismiss your sources, I told particularly if in every instant if there was a problem or not, the rest reaction would be the same like the earlier pharagraph.
Not citing because it was the last entry, answer to Jeff:
I do not consider very funny your comments, deductions that are failing the necessary neutrality, on the other hand your recent activity raise concerns also other places. If you wish to dismiss any Hungarian source e.g., it is again the same serious NPOV violation mentioned earlier, while you contradict yourself on your next sentence, when you admit the stance are divided, however you are in a stigmatizing way exclude the possibility of any fair source, that is utterly not the case. Also everyone have to see in a way Russell's teapot, or that entirely relying on foreign things on an issue is not the best approach, since we cannot dismiss anything inside, because we immediately harm the neutrality. If I check a foreign source and a Hungarian next to it, I may be more balanced and near to the reality than if not, but this is is true for any field of science, shall anyone to be the subject. However what is the most important for all you, that still it seems you wish to deteriorate the attention that I did not oppose any sources and their information to be present at this page, the debate is abut WHERE and HOW they are presented (and this is not the first time I have to repeat it.).(KIENGIR (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
Can someone open up an RfC on the Politics, government and law board? Or ask an editor who knows how to? I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's procedures.
-MWKwiki (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
MWKwiki, please adhere to our earlier point, give some time for other editors who may join the discussion, after a considerable time it did not happen, we may go in this direction. I still intend to wait a few days before any invitation of any editor.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
I too would like other editors to join the discussion. Your opposition to creating an RfC is that it would... let editors join the discussion? We already tried seeking a third opinion. The next step is to seek community input, because even if a week passes and the "other editors" stumble over this, I don't think it's going to resolve the dispute. We should open an RfC now... or are we seriously going to have a dispute over this too? -MWKwiki (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
MWKwiki, as I recall your (plural) point was that at first glance any editors should join on voluntary purpose without any WP procedure of seeking third party involvement. I have no opposition to and RFC generally, but the question is when?
We already tried seeking a third opinion -> when, how?
FYI, some issues are solved in months, however, I just predicted a shorter time, but it may seem to rush like you'd avoid further discussion. You should not worry, your points will not loose or anyone's. In my opinion then, let's give around three days if others join, if not I'll invite a few (less then it has been pinged earlier by Jay), we give again a time to discuss, and after I think there is no problem to have any 3O or anything. Maybe it would not be even needed, beucase already we have settled things (shall the end result favor anyone's standpoint).(KIENGIR (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
So I'm guessing that excluding pro-government North Korean media sources when seeking info on the North Korean government is a grave "NPOV" violation, not to mention a great slight to the noble North Korean people. I'm also guessing that domestic dissidents/critics are furthermore not to be trusted as their are politically/ideologically motivated by their burning animus against Fidesz.
The Fidesz government's influence over national media (and, in fact, some media organisation in Slovenia, North Macedonia, etc.) has been widely documented and is acknowledged by almost every serious entity not supportive or allied with Fidesz. If you choose to contest this point and continue to insist all reports of media interference by the Hungarian government are fiction, I cannot regard you as a serious, legitimate interlocutor any longer.
"[...] my correctness may not any means questioned." Oh, alright then. At least you're modest. I don't really see a point in discussing this any further with you if you declare beforehand that you think we're all wrong and you can never be proven wrong ever.
As said before, I pinged the editors who independently attempted to change the party orientation but were rebuffed authoritatively by New00100 and yourself despite all citing letitimate sources as far as I remember. After reverting ~8 editors, you can hardly claim there is consensus, especially when it was bludgeoned through by only two editors with questionable arguments (note, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.", and also note Wikipedia:Reliable sources). I did not ping New00100 because, frankly, I have a feeling I would just get called a commie "cuck". Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure New00100 broke several ban-worthy Wikipedia guidelines. I also find it problematic that you took issue with my Soviet propaganda analogy to such a degree that you felt the need to report me, but did not find fault with New00100 calling people "hysterical leftists & their far-leftists friends [...] Communists Socialists [...] lying [...], crying, bitching [...] immature kids [...] [spamming] their shit propaganda". You also failed to note that my analogy, though admittedly forceful, was a response to New00100's rethoric also.
Since no other editors were active in reverting the infobox edits or participated in the given discussion (as far as I know), I did not ping anyone else. However, if you'd like, you can also ping editors from the Political position section, though I'm confident most will concur with the "right-wing to far-right" designation.
But, anyway, I don't really see your objection to filing a request for comment. Are you saying that the outside experts you wish to bring in would be a counterweight to my supposed biased pinging? Why not just ping the editors I ostensibly neglected to ping because they disagreed with my position?
"[...] if you wish to exclude/reject editors who are understanding and knowing at first hand that outsiders may not [...]" I ask you again - are you saing that English-language sources are insufficient to ascertain whether the right-wing to far-right designation applies? If not, why would you need Hungarian "insiders"? All unreferenced claims would be moot so the only sensible way I can interpret this statement is that you'd need editors with a grasp of the Hungarian language to comb through the sources.
I'm positive we would not reject authoritative Hungarian sources. However, if such sources are known to be pro-government, it would necessarily be tainted and its content considered dubious at best on this issue. However, I have a feeling you would conversely reject all non-government sources as biased against the government. I must however point out that New00100 and yourself have used a government spokesperson as source [12][13][14], so I'm not really sure you command a firm grasp as to what would constitute an objective Hungarian source in this instance.
Regards. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Jay,
- I have to utterly decline and disavow any kind of comparison with North Korea, that is part of top insane comments and comparisions ever heard....please refrain yourself with your recurrent and unprofessional comparisons, as pointed out earlier!
- Straw-man argumentation of Jay -> I did not deny the media expansion and influence, but it is not complete or overbalanced in one direction on the whole, see the approx. percentages. Please read properly my sentences and do not speculate with them, neither twist them in the future. Thank You! (After such I could as well say I cannot regard you as a serious, legitimate interlocutor any longer...but I adhere to WP:AAGF and won't do that)
- At least you're modest -> I am honest.
- if you declare beforehand that you think we're all wrong and you can never be proven wrong ever. -> I warn you this may raise another civility issue because it is a serious defamation, I never said such. Please, refrain yourself from addressing me sentences I never said!
- I never asked you to ping New00100 in this discussion, I would not even do that. I just told you about in the ANI board that you have an obligation to do, reinforced by others (as far as I know you still ignored it)
- Well, nevertheless, you may admit your pings were quite restricted, you ignored as well other who touched the issue in the talk in a way or approached it.
- But, anyway, I don't really see your objection to filing a request for comment. Are you saying that the outside experts you wish to bring in would be a counterweight to my supposed biased pinging? Why not just ping the editors I ostensibly neglected to ping because they disagreed with my position? -> I have to assume you again misinterpreted my answer to earlier, please read accurately and precisely my sentences that you heavily failed also in this response...BTW if i would to ping because they disagreed with your position I would harm neutrality, did you think about this, hmm?
- are you saing that English-language sources are insufficient to ascertain whether the right-wing to far-right designation applies -> Again read back what I said if it is still not clear. There are both sides sources that may be accurate or not, shall it come from English, Hungarian, Arab, Punjabi, etc.
- I have a feeling you would conversely reject all non-government sources as biased against the government. -> prejudicative feeling, please try to avoid personal issues (again). I don't care where the source is coming from, I care about the content, shall it be govenrmental, non-governmental or Eskimo.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
"the question is when [to open an RfC]?" Now.
There is a 2-1 majority to open the discussion to more editors. I assume everyone here agrees that we are not making any progress in this dispute? KIENGIR, refusing to allow an RfC is basically a filibuster. We are trying to move the discussion along, and that involves opening up to other editors. I am becoming doubtful whether you are still acting in good faith, or do not realise how much of an obstruction you are being to us continuing the discussion. Please let us make an RfC to allow other editors to comment.
-MWKwiki (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
MWKwiki,
refusing to allow an RfC is basically a filibuster. -> I kindly ask you to avoid defamation (again). I never said such, we discussed the necessity over time, I said I have no opposition to and RFC generally
Btw, I find quite problematic that increasingly my sentences are evidently twisted, I could tell as well to you this time if it would be doubtful whether you are still acting in good faith or just having ad hominem speculation towards me to identify me in a negative manner. I never rejected anytime other editors comments, on the countrary, we discussed in which phase and how they should join in. And as well, you ignored to answer my question.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC))


I'm starting to think you don't know how comparisons work since you take issue with the fact that I'm drawing comparisons between things that are not the same.

You can read about the extent of the media influence in the article corresponding to the talk page.

You just said that the veracity of your statements is undisputable. This necessarily implies that all that disagree with you are wrong.

You took issue with my statement that referred just as much to New00100 as it did to you. So it was actually you who involved New00100, I just pointed it out. The guideline says "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors." I think the duty would have fallen on you.

My pings were limited to editors who were rebuffed by New00100 and you based on ostensible consensus apparently reached in this subsection. Again, if you feel I neglected to ping anyone else involved, you're free to do so.

I don't think it worthwhile to respond to the rest. I was hesitant to say this, but I have trouble understanding a lot of what you say due to poor syntax. I often have to guess what you're even trying to say, and than try to guess why I ostensibly misrepresented what you said. This is no way to carry on a discussion. I hope we can file a request for comment ASAP and get this over with.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

While we're at it, since many articles that designate parties as right-wing to far-right in infoboxes also do so in the lede, I would just ask any editor participating in the discussion to just state his/her stance on including it there also (especially if we arrive at a vote at some point).
P.S.: KIENGIR, please, pretty please, stop accusing us of slights to your character. This is a difficult discussion, and it's made even more difficult by your scrutinising every reply for wrongs against your honour, especially since you levy similar accusations/complaints against us.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Jay,
- I'm starting to think you don't know how comparisons work since you take issue with the fact that I'm drawing comparisons between things that are not the same.-> If you seriously consider that North Korea and Hungary could by any means compared in the context you are referring, I don't even say what I could have started to think...the key is the level and degree of comparison, grass is also growing there and people are homo sapiens on the power on two, like in the majority of other countries, but regarding political affairs and related Hungary may be one of the last ones of the candidates, if we wish to remain on solid ground and not fantasyzing on the colonization of Neptune in less then two weeks.
- Nope, I did not mention the editor, thus there was not duty on me. (Mentioning means to descibe his name.)
-This necessarily implies that all that disagree with you are wrong. -> this is a too much generalized implication, we discuss on special details, decomponating things to their evidential base.
- As I said, unless you not explicitly wish this earlier, I'd ping some other after a few days.
- Excuse me if my English grammar make you troubles, I try to be always the best possible. Such cases you should point out first what you don't understand properly, before commenting on it. Just because I express I am mispresented, it should not hurt you, suprisingly, I did commit similar such, although I am not a native English speaker. Seems again you don't wish to discuss, I would never ever reject any discussion with you, as this is as well a form of respect.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
Addendum to your P.S., that I missed:
Sorry, I did not make such accusations towards you or anyone that would rely on personal grounds, neither twisting your sentences or give anything to you that you did not say. Yes, it is a dificult discussion, but it does not make me not to read carefully, analyze and an interpret anyone's sentences in an precise manner also with the necessary logics and consistency in such a hard talk, with avoiding such phenomenos that happened to me or hat I have said. All of you should utterly avoid any personal direction.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
Yes, cite just half of a paragraph that neglects the fact the statement was referring to muliple persons and than insist that you don't have the duty to notify because you didn't technically mention him/her. Very crafty. However, if you read the guideline carefully, it does not mandate it, and nowhere says they have to be named, but only "involved". And even so, New00100 was first mentioned by another editor who quoted the first half of the paragraph, so ... Well, frankly, I think this is neither here nor there, really.
"[...] my correctness may not any means questioned." I'll let your words speak for themselves.
For the n-th time, ping any editors involved that you think I neglected to mentioned, but I don't think it proper you "[...] as well invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary)".
Look, you make a lot of statements that can as soon be interpreted as character attacks. Saying my comments are "insane", "unprofessional", just to list some recent example, could just as soon be construed as defamation/misrepresentation/bad faith/personal attacks etc. Short of direct insults, lets just drop analysis of what is proper and what is not, and stick to bare arguments for the sake of conciseness.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, technically you may argue he was mentioned by another editor, but he is a third part who gives opnion, not involved the original root cause, but you explicity cite him with a name, indeed.
- Can you prove I was not correct at any time, or did not intend to be??
- Ok, will do that shortly.
- Excuse me, charachter attack is not equal if I respond to fallacious statements or any injust designation of my person or intentions, since I comment on what is described, not on the editor personally, however I may ask the editor avoid improper or problematic descriptions that would be a charachter attack (sic!), that anyway mostly I suffered. Judging a way of argumentation or decription is as well do not fell in that category for a certain point. If I considered a comment of comparison insane and I did not judge you insane, if I consider something unprofessional and do not consider you unprofessional, but something of the presentation of the subject. If in an article with mathematics, somebody would describe a fallacious or debatable equation, if I judge it with qualifiers, would it be troublesome? Maybe if someone by mistake conclude to his person when it is not the case. But you now what, in this discussion I will avoid these two words per your request.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
"Can you prove I was not correct at any time, or did not intend to be??" That's what we've been doing this whole time. There is a big difference between being correct and trying to be correct. Your former statement referred to the former.
And you may consider my statement insulting but not myself personally. And the Catholics hate the sin, and not the homosexual. Look, this discussion is already reaching the word count of a brief novella, I just don't want to be getting further bogged down about discussion whether evoking one or another regime with a problematic media freedom record is a personal insult and what interpretation of your statements constitutes defamation.
Look, I don't think this conversation is moving anywhere. Let's just end here and wait for opinions by other editors, either any with previous involvement in this issue, or those attracted through a RfC.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's end here now I invite the editors you asked first, I was already composing the invitation meanwhile your comment, give me a few minutes, Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

─────────────────────────

@Norden1990:, :@Fakirbakir:, :@Koertefa:, :@Borsoka:, :@Kapeter77:,
please join the discussion and share your opinions about the subject.
(disclaimer): this invitation is based on a former agreement, as per another user earlier pinged in other users supporting his standpoint in this debate. At a point of our discussion we agreed to involve other editors as well, nevertheless without immediately a third party abitration at first glance. In my behalf I offered editors who are dealing with first hand experience regarding Hungary, but not any means I know anything about in detail their party preference/current poltical views, etc., hence this is not by any means may be interpreted that I would wish to support my opinion/standpoint, just to have a fresh input that maybe would help us to completely resolve the issue:
The debate is about whether or not it is fair to change in the infobox the ideology section from Right wing to Right wing to far-right. One side of the arguments say since many foreign RS qualifies the party like so, it should be, however the opposing arguments say there is nevertheless such sources, but in reality we have to count in there is a significant phemomenon the accuracy of these sources are debated in many ways, as the root cause would be the disagreement between several recent political stances like anti-immigration/not supporting the concept of European United States etc., thus the heavy critics and labeling of the party occurs in spite of this. The term far-right (Hungarian: szélsőjobboldali) has a quite heavy connotation and designation, especially to Hungarian ears, that has a history in the country, especially having two real far-right parties significantly more right and more extreme scale of the right-wing paletta, having that even the Hungarian opposition parties who are the utmost heavy criticist of Fidesz as well not consider the party like far-right.
Recently we agreed until now that in the top of the Ideology and policies section we put all the sources with extreme critics next to this, but some editors wish to abolish this. The arguments - long debate above, in this section is present (there were several other trials on this question as well in other sections in the talk, this may be as well read to have to whole picture). Thanks for anyone's time and opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
OK, so let me get this strait. Because I informed editors whose legitimate edits designating the party as right-wing to far-right based on reliable sources were reverted that the reason for the reverts appears to have become fallacious, you are now inviting editors that are in no way party to the dispute because they are ... Hungarians? And you don't find this problematic? First off, no one but you thought that this was a good idea.
I do not think your description adequately summarises our discussion; I would encourage anyone taking part in the discussion to read over the admittedly lenghty discussion. I must also point out that reliable sources have described Fidesz as far-right, and that all similar/related parties appear to be designated as right-wing to far-right in the infobox, and often in the lede.
It should be noted that a history of controversial far-right political forces should not proclude a party that is far-right being described as far-right. By that metric, the same objection could be applied for the AfD (NSDAP), Lega Nord/Fratelli d'Italia (Italian fascists), Vox (Falangists), UKIP (Mosley's British Fascists), National Rally (Vichy regime), etc.
Regardless of the opinions of the editors invited by KIENGIR, I would demand a speedy request for comment since this attempt to resolve the dispute is fraught with issues.
We also do not wish to remove the more in-depth examination of the criticisms of extremism by the party from the dedicated section. What is at question here is whether designating the party as ideologically "right-wing to far-right", based on designations by reliable sources, is warranted.
Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Jay, if you remember correctly, I invited them (this I also described more times, I think my English is on that level that such may not be misunderstood if your are better than me) because they have first hand knowledge and experience on Hungarian affairs, as a balancing input (contrary to yours, who just invited editors supporting your version, quite problematic you don't see the failed neutrailty on this, but let's not enter again to this clear issue, may read above). On your second pharagraph's first note, we agree I advised the same, even more broad to earlier discussions. Thank you for your addendums, I think it is the time let other editors to manifest, giving them considerable time to analyze this issue. Kind Regards, Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
I will restate our position for changing the political position from "right-wing" to "right-wing to far-right": The consensus among media outlets, plus arguments from experts and expert-analysis, should be the determining factor of the party's political position. In this case, numerous media outlets have independently described the party as far-right,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and this list is by no means exhaustive. Moreover, there are experts who identify Fidesz as far-right,[8] and voter surveys which increasingly identify the party as far-right on a level comparable to the far-right Jobbik party.[9] (The expert opinion and analysis I mention also includes the cited news articles, which have contacted experts and sourced them in their own analyses.)
MWKwiki (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kingsley, Patrick. "Opposition in Hungary Demonstrates Against Orban, in Rare Display of Dissent". New York Times. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  2. ^ "Michael Gove refuses to condemn far-right Hungarian leader Viktor Orban", The Independent, 16 September 2018, retrieved 16 September 2018
  3. ^ Schaeffer, Carol (28 May 2017). "How Hungary Became a Haven for the Alt-Right".
  4. ^ Dunai, Marton. "Hungary's Orban courts far-right voters ahead of 2018 vote".
  5. ^ "Hungary elections: Another populist test for Europe?". www.aljazeera.com.
  6. ^ "Hungary gears up for election: what is at stake?".
  7. ^ Huetlin, Josephine (7 April 2018). "In Hungary, Real News Has Become NSFW" – via www.thedailybeast.com.
  8. ^ "CSES Module 5: 2016-2021". CSES. CSES. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
  9. ^ Kondor, Katherine. "The Hungarian paradigm shift: how right-wing are Fidesz supporters?". openDemocracy. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
As I have said countless times, if you feel there are opposing editors that are party to the dispute, you are free to invite them. These editors are NOT party to the dispute, to the best of my knowledge.
Again, for the milionth time, "first-hand knowledge" is irrelevant because at the end of the day we have to rely on tangible sources, and not anecdotal wisdom. Do you think there is a paucity of reliable sources to such a degree that only Hungarian-speaking editors can contribute valuable imput?
And again, you appear to be claiming that you did not file a request for comment because you're trying to add balance by apparently inviting editors that will be less favourable to my stance. This is the only way I can interpret your statement. You appear to be admitting that there were no previously involved editors on the other side of the issue to invite. By doing so, you are contaminating the opinions the editors you just invited may express, especially if they agree with your stance - you do realise that, right?
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I think and I explained why. Just see my following answer to MWKwiki.
- Your next pharagraph is again a straw-man alike argumentation filled with speculations. I kindly ask you the to drop these at once. Balance (= NPOV, specific knowlege on special affairs)
-by apparently inviting editors that will be less favourable to my stance. This is the only way I can interpret your statement. -> Speculation, straw-man, twist, again the complete ignorance of the facts that are descibed, since I don't know anything of their political views or stance, but they are surely have more adequate information on Hungarian politics. Again, I kindly ask you the last time to drop negative aimed speculations against me, and remember WP:AAGF.
-:MWKwiki, I just read directly the Hungarian survey you are referred ([15]). Contrary to your earlier analysis above and here, the survey contain a scale index between left-wing and right-wing politics (0-10), not right-wing scale measurement from 0-10.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
I'm glad you finally read it! Although it seems you are now misremembering what I stated. I have never said it is a "right-wing scale measurement from 0-10". I have always said it's a left-right spectrum ranging from 0-10. Fidesz is being increasingly placed as a 9-10 on this spectrum, hence it is increasingly being identified as far-right. MWKwiki (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You see, this is the problematic conlcusion, that is OR. Far-right is not even mentioned by the survey, and the people did not qualify on that manner how far-rightness applies necessarily, but the specific distance between the center and left, or vica versa.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

"[...] because they have first hand knowledge and experience on Hungarian affairs, as a balancing input (contrary to yours, who just invited editors supporting your version [...]" You have been reluctant to endorse a request for comment. You have complained that I only invited editors who agree with me (I already explained my reasoning for whom I pinged) but did not invite any other editors that are party to the dispute you felt should have also been invited, despite being encouraged to do so on several occasions. How else am I supposed to interpret your comment about BALANCING IMPUT CONTRARY to editors SUPPORTING "MY VERSION"???
I'll try not to respond in the future since we're just running in circles. I hope the issue gets resolved speedily. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Jay, you should calm down, don't you see? You excluded from the pinging an editor that you judged personally not competent, but you as well invited a sock that is twice as more incompetent (not any negative assumes towards you, maybe you instantly copied the addresses and mayble the lack of WP experience, you don't see how problematic was this, regardless of your true intentions that you believe...) Get over it, we all humans who make mistakes, regard it as a technical error, but after this not any means you may critize my invitations and understood properly what balance means since I did NOT invite any editors that supported me in this particular debate (even with Norden19990, we argued on this talk page). Peace with you, and let's give to others the ground, if there is not any specific new reason to respond.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC))
Good god. I pinged all those that were reverted during the last 500 edits after describing the party as far-right in a referenced edit. I do not feel I have the duty to do due dilligence regarding the quality of their edits on other subjects, be they the devil incarnate. And if you of all people can't see how New00100 may have delegitimised himself with his demeaning rhetoric, I may seriously need to begin doubting your impartiality. Even so, I have repeatedly stated you're free to ping any counterparties to the argument you feel have been unfairly left out of the loop.
Just to be clear, I don't think I ever said you know the editors would support you. I'm saying your phrasing made it seem like you selected your cohort in a way as to counter a perceived unfair tilt/advantage of editor opinion in the other direction by currently participating editors (I count myself + 2, which is not many). I have already delineated why I find tihs problematic, especially because of what you chose not to do.
BTW, I use colourful text markup to make my replies more emphatic and dynamic, not to suggest any emotion. I'm calmer than a bottle of high-dose Valium.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but seeming like is excluded here, since I openly and explicity described the purpose, that you misinterpreted by the word "balance". Well, let's make an agreement, from now on, we do not contribute to the talk page for 24 hours until any other editor than three of us won't chime in, otherwise it may seems we don't wish to give them the place. Have a nice day.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

─────────────────────────Just a comment from the sideline: Do any of you seriously believe that editors will bother to wade through this thread with more than 100K text, where large parts seem to consist of off-topic discussions about editor behaviour interspersed with lots of "I never said that". If you cannot agree about starting a formal RfC (and I fail to understand why), I would suggest that you stop this thread immediately, and then start a new thread at the bottom of the page. There you can state the question you disagree about, followed by a short statement from each of you presenting your view, and then ping all the editors you want to ping. If anyone wants to read this thread, that is fine, but most editors will probably get lost quickly (like I did). Just a thought... --T*U (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian nationalism[edit]

Mélencron,

then the sources will be removed as well since the link to the Hungarian nationalism article is invalid, as per discussion. That's why the proper designation instead of it is Patriotism.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC))

I’m not seeing any discussion on that article’s talk page - seems more like one user just removed it unilaterally on the basis that Fidesz shouldn’t be listed alongside neo-Nazi parties.--Jay942942 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, the discussion is on the talk page, and the restructuring was necessary.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC))
The only discussion is you rejecting it, and one other user saying he is unsure.--Jay942942 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Though by the other user's edit as a result I agreed, thus both of us agreed on that in the end.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC))
Can you find any other political party page where "patriotism" is in the infobox as an ideology? Almost all parties will claim to be patriotic. Secondly, two of the sources you cited are primary sources - an interview with Orban and a speech by Orban. Secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia. The third is an opinion piece, which should only be used as a source for that author's opinion rather than fact. Please see WP:RS.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────I don't know what would be the connection to "other political party page". As I have always warned we have to be careful about what is claimed or what is th reality...there are anyway many other sources that would descibe the party the same, as it is, or you deny it would be a patriotic party?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC))

If you have other reliable secondary sources that say this, please add them to the infobox and replace the unreliable sources with them. Patriotism is subjective, it is not an ideology – that's why it is not mentioned in the infobox of any Wikipedia article. Macron calls himself a patriot. There are also various opinion articles that describe him and his En Marche as patriotic. Would you advocate adding "Patriotism" to the infobox there? If no, why not? The addition of it there would be as equally as justified as adding "Patriotism" here. If yes, then what's the point of having "Patriotism" in any infobox at all if it encompasses parties as vastly ideologically different as En Marche and Fidesz – does it add anything to the article? If a party leader calls themselves "great" and "strong", will we then start putting "Greatness" and "Strength" as ideologies in the infobox? And who determines "reality" here? Wikipedia works on reliable sources. It doesn't matter if you don't think they're "the reality" – we go off what the reliable sources say or it's WP:OR.--Jay942942 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
There is already one secondary source, and I don't think more would satisfy you based on your argumentation. As I reflected more times, I am the one who really does not rely on who and what claims to itself or any politically motivated or influenced press what improper epithets are glueing on parties or persons, so don't try to identify I would support that. It is a fact that Fidesz is a patriotic party, and not because the party ando/or Viktor Orbáns would claim it. Again, I would not mix affairs of other parties here, such claims should be discussed by the talk page on i.e. Macron's party.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC))
The sources are: (1) an opinion article, (2) a quote from Orban in an interview of him, (3) an Orban speech. Almost every party (other than radical internationalists and separatists) in Europe identifies as patriotic and if the dictionary definition of that term is used, they will as a matter of "fact" be patriotic. I will not removed your edit because no other user seems to disagree with it, but I remain opposed to this change.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
If you'd propose a(n) (intermediary) solution, feel free to tell it...should we remove some sources of what you criticized? Should we abandon patriotic? Would that satisfy you?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC))
"Patriotism" is not a neutral & objective political ideology or orientation, but a subjective value judgement with a positive connotation. Precedent is also relevant and indicative, as Jay942942 (no relation) has pointed out. The designation would be misplaced even if it were supported by appropriate sources. I'm removing it from the infobox. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Well in case as long as it if it is not replaced by any improper designation, shall it be...(KIENGIR (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Question of death penalty[edit]

Sorry,

your rephrasing again promoted something that did not happen, Orbán did not raise voice of the reintroduction of the death penalty in Hungary, he said this question should be judged and decided on a member state level, and only it is needed if those locals who cannot defend themselves are in danger because of the current state policy wiithout death penalty, which cannot defend them. Thus my second rephrasing was proper, and short:

On policy grounds, Orbán and his government came into conflict with the EU by the conditional voicing support for the death penalty (which is prohibited by EU rules), a right that should be decided by the member states meanwhile clashing with the EU over the handling of the European migrant crisis.[1][2][3]

You cannot identify a strictly conditional support as a "voicing support", as well you cannot confuse "reintroduction in Hungary" with "judgement on the question (= yes or no)" on member state level. Thus until we don't achieve consensus, we should make here to rephrase it to a commonly accepted version.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

@Norden1990:,
please read the HVG source....it would be false report?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but I'm still not really sure what your concern is exactly. From my reading of the sources, Orban voiced support for the reintroduction of the death penalty within Hungary, however the death penalty is prohibited for all EU member states, hence the squabble. I really don't see what extra context is needed here ... Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
[16], [17], his initial statements. Of course, later, when the scandal broke out, he backed down from his standpoint and said he only thought that the issue should be a national competence again. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Norden1990:, @Jay Hodec:
none of the sources you put say elsewhere like HVG, they are all about
"Korainak tartom megválaszolni a kérdést, hogy be kell-e vezetnünk a halálbüntetést, vagy sem. De fontosnak tartom, hogy beszéljünk róla. Ezért a brüsszeli viszonylatban egy demokráciavita állt elő” (= It is too early to answer the question to reintroduce death penalty, or not. But I think, it is important to talk about it. Like this in connection with Brussels, a democratic debtae emerged)
"Orbán Viktor szerint nincs elég visszatartó ereje a tényleges életfogytiglani büntetésnek, ezért a halálbüntetés napirenden tartására utalt." (= according to Viktor Orbán the factual life imprisonment does not have the necessary retaining power, thus he alluded the question fo death penalty should be kept in the agenda)
I don't cite the "should be decided on member state level", it is also present...
Jay, did you read these sources? Or the HVG one? I doubt it...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
I don't speak Hungarian. That's why I'm asking you what your particular objection is. Am I missing something? Are the English-language sources wrong? Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jay Hodec:, yes many of the English sources coming from opposition media are often twisting the words or qualify the real happenings differently as they happened. I will wait more on Norden's feedback...(KIENGIR (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

───────────────I think the "opposition" view should always be considered more weighty while dealing with controversy regarding people and groups in positions of power. However, it is entirely possible that the initial int. media response missed some detail or misrepresented some statement. However, for the n-th time, I'm not really sure what your problem with the concise statement is. All that your clarification accomplishes - at least in my view - is to make the paragraph unnecessarily convoluted while not really altering the underlying message. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jay Hodec:, more weighty cannot be equal of falsification, and here in WP we should maintain WP:NPOV. Excuse me what you don't understand the n-th time?
Let's try again: do you understand that "he alluded the question fo death penalty should be kept in the agenda" is NOT equal with supporting death penalty as "YES", but "NEGOTIABLE" with a possible outcome of "NO"?(KIENGIR (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
"The death penalty question should be put on the agenda in Hungary … Hungary will stop at nothing when it comes to protecting its citizens." Are we really going to discuss if including something in your political agenda qualifies as political support? "Conditionally" supporting something is semantically equal to voicing support for something i.e. something you would be open to doing but will not necessarily be doing. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jay Hodec:, if you argue in such way (though arguable if voicing support would not express yes), you should:
1. first remove "which is supported by Orbán but prohibited by EU rules" in the European Union section, because it is contradicting your argumentation, it is enough to say they clashed with the EU on the subject
2. "by voicing support for the reintroduction of the death penalty within Hungary (EU rules prohibit the death penalty for all member states)" -> modify this sentence with adding "possible" before reintroduction.
In case, we may close this issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
Would you be content if "tentative" is added? -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it not properly drawn from the relevant sources. Regarding the Horthy-Soros case, you totally misunderstood me, thus I will open another talk for it...you've suprassed almost 3 reverts, so don't touch anything in order to prevent you to be sanctioned for edit warring.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

Sentence with Horthy and Soros[edit]

@Jay Hodec:,

By reading your edit log, you've totally misunderstood me. The question of anti-semitism I rased had not any connection to Horthy or the regency itself, but that campaign of Fidesz regarding Soros!

The problem is the in the jusrisdiction of the Kingdom of Hungary not necessarily "Horthy pass laws", but the Parliament has it's own procedure with the involvement of the government, thus the rephrasing is needed because the journalist who wrote this sentences are either not really aware of historical accuracy. That's why the core of my rephrasing was that under his reign were anti-Jewish laws passed (and anti-Jewish laws are the proper term for that, not "anti-Semitic" really)

Regarding the anti-Soros campaign even if you treat it less coherent, the rephrasing is needed becase the capaign itself was NOT an anti-Semitic campaign, but such accusations were raised, thus in this case only "widely criticized as a thinly veiled anti-Semitic appeal by criticizing" si viable we cannot say that "employing anti-Semitic tropes" because such did not happen. Criticism always pointed out a possible hidden anti-Semitims as a root cause, that was never confirmed or happaned apparently.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

Horthy had, as far as I understand, considerable executive powers, so his function was significant. You can take the example of the US - though the president does not have legislative powers, he does sign or veto laws and can influence what legislation is introduced and passed. "Signed legislation into law" can thus be regarded as interchangeable with "passed". Anyway, I think we get into pretty shaky territory if we're citing sources and then going "I think what the source meant to say"/"what the source should have said (if (s)he knew anything about anything)". Anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic can also be used interchangeably, though your point has been duly noted.
If you read my phrasing carefully "Orbán was confronting criticism for ... employing anti-Semitic tropes in his criticism of George Soros" you'll see it doesn't at all state that Orban was antisemitic, but that his language can be considered/interpreted as using antisemitic tropes. I think that Orban has undeniably employed rhetoric that can be interpreted as containing classical anti-Semitic tropes (regardless of whether there was intent or not). If there should be any further clarification, I would suggest adding "... for ... allegedly employing anti-Semitic ...". -J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jay Hodec:,
the things is that the sentence looks now if Horthy would pass the laws or initiate that himself, that is misleading, you could only say in that manner that "approved". Regarding anit-Jewish or anti-Semitic, let's be professional, the former is the correct name as well present in the Horthy artcile, this is facutal. It could raise as well copyright violation issues, if you copy-paste one-by-one sentences from sources, that why we should maintain close pharaphrasing even if the source does not have mistakes or factual falsities, so you should not object in the future this process (the real message does not change either).
Again, you misunderstood, it is not about if Orbán would be anti-Semitic, it is about the poster-campaign! I read the sentence carefully, it is stating that "Orbán was confronting criticism for ... employing anti-Semitic tropes in his criticism of George Soros" although he was not employing anti-semitic tropes, he was only accused the behind the poster campaign against Soros possibly anti-Semitic reason could have been, but it was not the case and such was never proven. It was an assumption that comes everyday regading any criticsim of Soros. That's why the only neutral a correct solution to use the "widely criticized as a thinly veiled anti-Semitic appeal by criticizing" because this phrase is fair and anyway coming from The New York Times, so you really should not worry.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
Again, if we take the example of the U.S.; a bill can be introduced in either the House or the Senate, needs to pass both Houses of Congress, and must be signed into law by the president. All three "pass" the legislation, but any one of the three can prevent passage. BTW do you have actual sources regarding the pre-WWII legislative process? I don't have strong objections to changing "anti-Semitic laws" to "anti-Jewish laws", however, I could conceive circumstances where one would be more appropriate than the other (e.g. a law that used anti-Semitic language but does not actually persecute Jews). I have tried to stay as close to the original sources as possible due to the contentiousness of the topic, sometimes avoiding wording changes that could affect meaning. I don't know what you're trying to tell me regarding "close pharaphrasing even if the source does not have mistakes or factual falsities" etc. ...
I don't think your phrasing regarding Orban-Soros-antisemitism issue makes semantic sense. Why not just add an "allegedly" and be done with it? -J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jay Hodec:,
In some cases you wish to enter so deep in the details, in some other cases you wish to ignore the important details. Of pre-WWI legistlative process you'll find enough information on the relevant articles and their sources, flipbsutering of one word does not really make sense for this (pass)...since anti-Jewish laws is the best appropriate, since also historically ther are called ("zsidótörvények" = "Jewish-laws").
"close pharaphrasing even if the source does not have mistakes or factual falsities" -> close pharaphrasing should be applied as well if the content of the source does not have any problems raised i.e. here
"allegedly" is blurry, again raising and targeting a clear suspicion in a negative manner. Since you recurrently adding criticist material, you should twice as more take care to remain neutral as far as possible. Semantic sense...but yes, we cannot say something happened if it did not happen (although the opposition would have had liked it as a possible casus belli to attack the government). We should avoid propaganda in those times, where i.e. in the political life there is almost a daily shoap opera how to accuse anybody for anything with anti-Semitism. That's why we have to pinpoint the "accusation of the possible hidden anti-Semitic gounds".(KIENGIR (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
P.S.: I just went ahead and changed the disputed sentence to a more moderated version that takes into account both our stances and objections. I hope we can reach consensus around the current phrasing. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────Regarding close paraphrasing, I attempt to summarise/rewrite/combine/consolidate content when possible, however, especially when dealing with a contentious subject, any slight variation in wording can sometimes result in a different meaning as there are no other ways to convey exactly the same meaning.

Regarding "allegedly", I think presenting allegations from reliable sources is as close to objective as you can get. He was objectively accused of using anti-Semitic tropes. I think that going into the primary source and trying to assess the "truth" on your own may constitute original research. That's why you say "accused" and "allegedly" - because it is not necessarily true (and the veracity of the assertions is not even relevant in this context since we're discussing controversy which is dependent solely upon public perception). -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, with your "went ahead" let's this issue be closed.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC))
Alright, great, thanks. Since the debates are largely semantic/"philosophical", if these are the biggest issues/objections regarding my content expansion, I'll be a very happy man.
Have a nice week-end. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S.: I'm more or less done adding content, however, I haven't had the time to do a thorough revision to correct inartful language etc. I'll try to identify and correct any possible other areas of dispute during revision. I hope there won't be any major content disputes since conflict resolution for those can be truly soul-chrusing. Anyway, regards -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jay Hodec:,
Have also a nice weekend! Don't worry, if it would be any further problem with the language, will tell you. Well, the case with the death penalty is not solved yet, so we will return to that. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

Mistake[edit]

@Jay Hodec:,

sorry, there was an error with my browser, revealed now, some parts of the article was not apparent, I see now...(KIENGIR (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC))

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference :10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Orbán Viktor: vissza akarjuk kapni a jogot a halálbüntetés bevezetésére". hvg.hu. HVG. 8 May 2015.