Talk:Fidesz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Date for the conservative turn

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)

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

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. However, the presence of the extremist MIÉP in the Hungarian party system does not necessarily preclude nationalism of other political parties.

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 [1] SZDSZ, András Wermer [2] (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? [3] 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

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. [4]

-- 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 by the party, as the views of MIÉP are more extreme. 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

"Nationalist" in English and Hungarian

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)

Liberal conservative

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 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fidesz

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)

Changed consequent with consistent

"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

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 Union → Fidesz — 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.

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

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 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010152354/http://www.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=68476 to http://www.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=68476
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111220074218/http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/ to http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313232727/http://esbalogh.typepad.com:80/hungarianspectrum/2011/12/the-end-of-the-independent-judiciary.html to http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2011/12/the-end-of-the-independent-judiciary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140504110055/http://www.opendemocracy.net:80/gell%C3%A9rt-rajcs%C3%A1nyi/democracy-in-hungary-defence-of-fidesz to http://www.opendemocracy.net/gellért-rajcsányi/democracy-in-hungary-defence-of-fidesz

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906103039/http://www.policysolutions.hu:80/userfiles/elemzesek/Euroszkepticizmus%20Magyarorsz%C3%A1gon.pdf to http://www.policysolutions.hu/userfiles/elemzesek/Euroszkepticizmus%20Magyarorsz%C3%A1gon.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-26/world/hungary.election.results_1_fidesz-viktor-orban-socialist-party?_s=PM:WORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818083027/http://www.vokscentrum.hu/onkorm/elemzo.php?jny=hun&mszkod=860001&mitmut=polgmjv to http://www.vokscentrum.hu/onkorm/elemzo.php?jny=hun&mszkod=860001&mitmut=polgmjv

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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

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

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. Fidesz has been accused of xenophobia. In September 2016, Human Rights Watch said that the Fidesz government was engaging in a "xenophobic anti-Migrant campaign".

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." 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". The World Jewish Congress has said that Fidesz bear some responsibility for the rise of anti-Semitism in Hungary. The Fidesz government has downplayed the problem of rising antisemitism in the country, in addition to attributing it to the European Union.

Fidesz has been accused of antiziganism. Amnesty International has accused the Fidesz government of "discrimination against the Roma". 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." Nobody in the Fidesz party leadership condemned Bayer's writings, with some defending them. 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.

References

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

Survey

• 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.

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."

Fidesz has been also accused of antiziganism. Amnesty International has accused the Fidesz government of "discrimination against the Roma".

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

References

@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.

Fidesz's ideology

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185401/http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=383058&lng=1 to http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=383058&lng=1

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018221107/http://hungary.usembassy.gov/kounalakis12082011.html to http://hungary.usembassy.gov/kounalakis12082011.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Hungarian nationalism

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

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.

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))

References

@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)

[12], [13], 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

@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

@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))