Talk:Hungarian Socialist Party

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

Untitled[edit]

Why are modern day Hungarians so stupid that they elect the very forces that they were fighting in the streets during 1956?

Because of the 33 years of communist brainwash. Frigo 16:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This article requires a language cleanup and clarification of ideas in the latter part of the article (last 2 paragraphs). It is very unclear and some it is grammatically incorrect. Stevenmitchell 08:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only does it require a language clean up, it has also been apparently hi-jacked! It needs an ideological clean up as well!!Philiboy 09:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This page had clearly been written or re-writted by a Fidesz sympathizer. I tried to give it a de-ideologizing. But as I can't stand Fidesz or anything they stand for, I might have fallen over the other side of the horse.

Edits by 83.240.249.87[edit]

I'm not an expert on the Hungarian Socialist Party, by I reverted several edits by 83.240.249.87 (and changed one expression) for the following reasons:

  • (1) The address is clearly stated as 1081 Budapest, Köztársaság tér 26. (not 29) on the party's website, see [[1]]
  • (2) I don't think the generic term "liberal social democratic party" exists, so I changed it to "social democratic party with a strong pro-market agenda" (the "liberal" part itself is, of course, justified, cf. the further description).
  • (3) The term "Socialist Party in Hungary" sounds awkward, and since the media, I believe, usually use "Hungarian Socialist Party", we should stick to it. Is there any reference to an official English translation of "Magyar Szocialista Párt"? The website doesn't seem to have an English part (sorry, I don't read Hungarian). -- Semper discipulus 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neoliberal AND socialdemocratic??[edit]

Neoliberal and socialdemocratic?? Isnt that a contradiction in terms? I thought neoliberalism was strongly opposed to social democracy! Being a social democrat myself, I most strongly reject the values of economic neoliberalism! --Oddeivind (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Social democracy has betrayed socialism by collaborating with the enemies of the workers. The Hungarian Socialist Party is nothing more than a pro capitalist party that has no left ideal left. Since the fall of Stalinism, most Social democratic parties have turned right wing and all accepted free market capitalism and neoliberalism. Shame on them all. --UDSS (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

MSZP went into coalition with the liberal party SZDSZ. As far as I know, it's not liberal. --81.182.19.240 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Word Of The Week[edit]

"consistent"

--131.111.8.102 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Other social democrats in Hungary dispute whether the MSZP is actually social democratic - so changing "is" to "describes itself as" -- continued debate on this page provides further evidence of uncertainty.Cme34 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

including, but not limited to[edit]

"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. --Unimath (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Social Liberalism[edit]

The term social liberalism is quite right for a party like this. It’s a shame how a socialist party dares to follow a capitalist economical program. But since this party was once Stalinist ( Hungarian Socialist Workers Party ) it is no surprise to me. Stalinists betrayed Marxism since 1924, and after 1991 they made the final betrayal by accepting capitalism. This party is just one of the many former Stalinist party that adopted liberalism and capitalism, while still calling them self socialist, shame on them. --UDSS (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess (16 Feb 2014)[edit]

The current article is poorly made, and it is far too messy. Currently, it's completely impossible to get any information without reading the entire block of repetitive text covering the entire article. Therefore I've done a cleanup. You say that I've removed information and sources - well, while it's important that we source as much as possible, we do not need every single detail about the MSZP, as long as it is irrelevant for its greater history.

Remember that the article must not be too long, and that the MSZP will probably exist for many years to come. Therefore, we cannot have this much information covering just over 20 years. Parties that are over 100 years old typically have neater articles than this.

Remember that we're supposed to be an encyclopaedia - not an archive.

Feel free to add new information or re-write parts of the current version, but the one I've made is a far better starting point than the old article. Furthermore, my version now has 17 sources, far more than the 10 cited in the old one.85.165.239.197 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing an article on Wikipedia does not work the way you think it does. For a major re-write it is necessary to gain consensus and it's better to use step-by-step manner. You surely made necessary corrections but also erased material that you deemed unnecessary based on your own perception. For example, the introduction of a separate section on ideology is justified, however, you removed reliably used material from a specialist source ([2] I had added it at one point) and replaced with your own generalizations which are not reliably sourced. Note that WP is not a paper encyclopedia so this information would nicely suit into an article even after a restructuring. Even before your edit it was not too long, but too small (little information on 1990s apart from the Bokros package which of course is essential and which you for strange reason also chose to remove). Based on this, I am sorry but I will have to revert you. I will, however, also divide it into paragraphs that will enable to get an overview.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Your revert of the re-written article has significantly deteriorated the quality of it. It remains a mess. However, I will not keep arguing with you. Once again mediocracy triumphs. 85.165.239.197 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I suggest your version in this article and a separate article for the detailed history, like: History of the Hungarian Socialist Party. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we are ready for a split. The mere length is not a legitimate argument: compare with the article on Jobbik - it's larger though the party has had much less influence. Or with PiS. As for IP 85.165.239.197 concerns, there is currently nothing that would prevent them from being addressed in an orderly manner. The headings I added are arbitrary, I had to propose some solution for overcoming a 'mess' as he/she likes to put it, but I also realigned some sections to improve chronology.
But as far as reliably sourced details (and by that I mean specialist sources like the couple I once added) are concerned, then no, we are not going to remove them. And removing the mention of Bokros package altogether is tantamount to deleting Balcerowicz Plan from History of Poland (1945–89). Sorry, but we don't have to assume all of our readers need just general statements like 'the party gained power in 1994 and governed with liberals until 1998'. As for the question of due emphasis, it is apparent that lots of space have been allocated to various pre-election maneuvers 2013-2014, there may be need to shorten it - but as far as I am concerned, it doesn't bother me. The surest way to be useful is to start adding sources to the sentences tagged as needing a source (I chose not to remove even those, as I expected one might object to this). Please make your suggestions. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The ideology section stands with no sources; however, it wasn't me who wanted to introduce it. As the idea to add an ideology section in case of a political party is natural, I retained such a distinction. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
And yet my version, with its four sources in the ideology section, is not good enough for you... 85.165.239.197 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether your summary or the one I simply copy-pasted is better. I have no preference, I simply reverted to a base, from where we should begin. In fact, neither version adds much as to the current situation. You claimed the article was messy so I didn't want stuff directly connected with 1990s into this general section on ideology.
I don't know if nationalism is still a major issue on the upcoming elections. Norden1990 could perhaps explain us, if MSzP has regained centre-left ground in economic policies (one would guess that many openly neoliberal members left with Gyurcsány). Some still claim the opposite: ″In Magyar Nemzet, János Pelle points out that the left-wing opposition parties are “to the right of Fidesz in terms of economic policies.” The moderate right-wing columnist contends that the left-wing opposition is more pro-market than the governing forces.″ [3]Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian Socialist Party. 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 on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 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)