Talk:József Szájer

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on József Szájer. 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/20110825012931/http://praguedeclaration.org/vipsig to http://praguedeclaration.org/vipsig

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Inline citations needed

For anyone who speaks Hungarian, I believe this citation below might be useful for filling in some of the inline citation gaps in the article.

Matild, Torkos (2020-12-01). "Katedrától az ereszcsatornáig – Szájer József életútja". Index.hu (in Hungarian). Archived from the original on 2020-12-01. Retrieved 2020-12-02. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

'Roman Catholic'

One of the categories of this article is 'Hungarian Roman Catholics'. However, I can find no source saying this; not even the Hungarian Wikipedia article has anything. If there's a reliable source, this information can also go in the Infobox, but I'm primarily concerned about the category; it's been on this article for years, having been added by an IP back on 4 May 2015. Until a reliable source can be found, I'm going to remove the category for the time being. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate See Also entries

@TheTechnician27: - the See Also entries you added (and then re-added) are completely inappropriate, especially for a living person's article. The presence of any of them insinuates that Szájer is homosexual, which is not something we can simply conclude from the fact that he is evidently a man who has sex with men (nor from the fact that he was accused of being such by a fellow politician). Beyond that, this article doesn't draw any connections between him and homosexuality besides his non-support of the legalization of gay marriage. Internalized homophobia is even less appropriate, as it also implies that his stance constitutes him being a homophobe. Until we reach the point where we can say that he is gay in the article text (which we currently do not and should not), it is inappropriate (and in the internalized homophobia case I would say potentially downright slanderous) to include those "see also" links that make no sense being there otherwise, since his career has not dealt with LGBT issues in a major way (at least as far as this article says). (Note for comparison the lack of any such links at Larry Craig#See also.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For a relevant guideline here (the page is specifically talking about categories, but the logic can be reasonably extended to See Also entries), see WP:EGRS#Sexuality. Notably: "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person are subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Categories, lists and navigation templates: such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. For example, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, may not be categorized as gay." -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Elmer Clark: I'll go over what I see to be the relevance of the three links. 'LGBT rights in Hungary' shouldn't be in any way controversial, as yes, this politician is anti-LGBT (see sources below as well). He's a member of a radically anti-LGBT party who drafted a new constitution that explicitly repudiates calls for same-sex marriage recognition. This sort of equivocation is akin to "He just believes interracial marriages shouldn't be recognized; that's not grounds to call him a racist." At the very least, I think this article should be uncontroversially added back due to this Hungarian politician's history of legislation against LGBT rights.

The other two links are 'Passing (sociology)' and 'Internalized homophobia'. Assume, for a second, that Mr. Szájer – who's been outed as gay by a member of the Alliance of Free Democrats and who was fleeing from a 25-man gay orgy above a gay bar – is just an MSM who still identifies as heterosexual; passing still applies here, as he hides urges and activities that his party clearly does not condone for the sake of social acceptance.

The two portals were 'Portal:Politics' and 'Portal:LGBT'. 'Politics' is obvious, but an article about an anti-gay MEP whose actions directly affect the lives of LGBT people also makes the article relevant to LGBT issues; in essence, the placement of the portal is less about Szájer's 'outing' and more about his anti-gay politics.

I'll concede that the article 'Internalized homophobia' may be too charged for a BLP until Szájer formally comes out as homo- or bisexual or until reliable sources formally address him as e.g. "gay". The rationale for placing it there, of course, is that readers who are interested in an article about a virulently anti-gay politician being discovered fleeing from a gay orgy might be interested in the subject of internalized homophobia.

Aforementioned sources:

• https://www.foxnews.com/world/anti-gay-hungarian-diplomat-resigns-brussels-sex-orgy-coronavirus-rules "Anti-gay Hungarian politician resigns after Brussels police bust 25-man orgy for violating coronavirus rules"

• https://nationalpost.com/news/world/euro-mp-for-viktor-orbans-anti-lgbtq-party-quits-after-being-caught-at-brussels-gay-orgy "Euro MP for Viktor Orban's anti-LGBTQ party quits after being caught at gay lockdown orgy"

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/world/europe/jozsef-szajer-european-parliament-resignation.html "Mr. Orban’s party has cast itself increasingly as a defender of conservative Christian values and has used anti-gay rhetoric at home in Hungary."

TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, removing the Politics portal was a mistake on my part, sorry. I've added that one back. As for your other points, I agree that it's pretty blatantly obvious that the guy is gay or at least bisexual, but that doesn't really matter - we can't assume such things about living people, full stop. We can say he was outed because that's documented fact, we can talk about the orgy incident because that's documented fact, but his sexual orientation for now is not, so that's that.

And the idea that even if we ignore his personal life, the categories are still appropriate simply because he belongs to a party that opposes gay marriage seems like a huge stretch to me. I do not agree that it's a simple logical step that opposing gay marriage makes you "anti-LGBT" in the context of a country where that's a completely mainstream view. Should we add that to every other member of Fidesz's See Also sections (i.e. the large majority of the Hungarian national assembly)? Would it have been appropriate for Barack Obama ten years ago? I think that's only appropriate when you've been highlighted as PARTICULARLY anti-LGBT by reliable sources. When half or more of your country opposes gay marriage, simply doing so is not nearly enough to make you notable in an LGBT context. Otherwise we'd end up in a situation where every politican would have dozens of See Alsos corresponding to all of their party's stances (Gun rights in Hungary, Immigration in Hungary, Environmentalism in Hungary, etc, etc, etc.). -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That being said - if we added information to the article about how sources have pointed out the hypocrisy of a member of a party that opposes LGBT rights getting caught doing this (using those sources you listed), then I think there would be a clear enough connection to add back a link to LGBT rights in Hungary. But definitely not internalized homophobia or passing. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and did so myself (with sources that comment more directly on the hypocrisy element) and re-added LGBT rights in Hungary as the connection now seems clear regardless of his orientation. Probably would've been more productive for me to start with that move...ah well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think any "insinuation" is at all required here. The facts about Szájer's fun night out in Brussels speak for themselves, and I think it's clear what he likes and how this compares to his political stance to date. However, User:Elmer Clark is correct here that WP:BLP applies. You can link all sorts of interesting articles here, but the point is that the reader should draw their own conclusions about Szájer and his personal actions. It's not Wikipedia's job to draw those conclusions for the reader by pointing them to seemingly related articles. That may work with a historical figure where later interpretation of their life can be discussed, but there are extra limitations when writing about living people, so you've just got to curtail any interpretation. State the facts, and little else. It's frustrating, I know, but that's just how it works. Cnbrb (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

conspiracy theories spread by media close to Fidesz

Some Hungarian media are spreading conspiracy theories about the sex affair. I cited two sources in the German wikipedia, but I guess it's no use citing German sources here. 46.114.137.17 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring to in the German article, but regardless, citing non-English sources here is fine. Most citation templates support a "language" field, so just add "language=de" to your citation. This article already has a number of Hungarian sources that you can use as models. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Awards

shouldn't inclusion of awards be accompanied by a mention of whatever the contribution was that merited such award? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)