Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló

Is Jobbik a neo-Nazi or fascist party?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the balance of biographical information

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

• • Some proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

soapbox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. "Persecuted in Hungary for their Roma heritage, Joszef and his mother moved constantly, sometimes sleeping in train stations, before coming to Canada in 2011 as refugees, eventually settling in Mississauga." Published in the news section of the Toronto Star on 9th April 2013.
2. "[Klaus Bade, a professor at the University of Osnabrückand an expert on European migration] called on the EU to tackle "push" factors such as the discrimination against Roma in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary which makes Germany appear a haven of tolerance." Published in the news section of the Times of London on 11 February 2013.
3. "Despite documented discrimination against Roma in Europe, a major ethnic group seeking asylum in Canada, Ottawa has designated all but two EU member states safe for refugees... Human rights groups said anti-Roma sentiments are widespread in Europe and the designation of Hungary as safe for refugees is problematic. 'In Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, the situation is even more alarming, with violent attacks and anti-Roma rhetoric and little progress towards ending housing and school segregation,' Human Rights Watch said in its 2012 world report. Extremist parties are mainstream in Europe. Jobbik, the third largest party in Hungary’s parliament, is linked to a paramilitary group implicated in attacks on Roma; the leader of the Slovak National Party, part of Slovakia’s ruling coalition, recently called for the creation of a separate Roma state." Published in the news section of the Toronto Star on 14 December 2012.
4. "In eastern European countries that are EU members, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, accounts are rife of widespread discrimination against Roma, including physical attacks." Published in the news section of The Guardian the 30 July 2010.
5. "Mr Szaniszlo’s anti-Semitic outbursts and his detrimental remarks about the country’s ostracised Roma minority were made on air in 2011 and prompted Hungary’s state-controlled media watchdog body to fine the channel." Published in the news section of The Independent on 17 March 2013.
6. "Far-right parties from Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria won seats in the European Parliament in June, and extremist attacks on Roma have intensified, with one Hungarian gang suspected of killing six Gypsies and injuring several more in the last year alone. In Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, well organised nationalist groups regularly march through Roma districts to protest at what they call a wave of Gypsy crime , inflaming tension that has been intensified by the impact of the economic crisis on poor white families." Published in the news section of The Irish Times on 10 September, 2009.

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

note: I have untangled Norden1990's comments from my own, and numbered our points to make his response below understandable. His comment to point #3 is no longer relevant because I've since included the material specifically mentioning Hungary. -Darouet (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

1. The report of the Canada Border Services Agency is more reliable than a lie of a Gypsy family who tried to settle in Canada referring to the "Hungarian discrimination against them". [14] --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2. This sentence does not contain specific details, but only generalization. For example I don't think that France is a racist and anti-Semitic country just because some Jews were murdered in 2012 and expelled lot of Roma people to home, Romania. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
3. I don't see Hungary in this news. As I said, Canada already stated that Hungary is a safe country for the Romani people and for the Gypsies there is no reason to settle in Canada referring to to the Hungarian racism. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
4. "Including physical attacks." There is again a lack of concrete. If a Hungarian attacks a Roma he does not necessarily make this because of the Roma's origin. On the other hand there are lot of crimes that gypsies committed against Hungarians or other non-Romani people (Olaszliszka lynching, Veszprém stabbing, murder of Kata Bándy in 2012 etc.). Based on your logic there is also anti-Hungarian sentiment by the Romani people in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
5. These anti-Roma sentences shall not constitute the persecution of the Roma community. Echo TV is not a state-controlled media, so The Independent is wrong, therefore is not an authentic source. This article is full of sliding, half-truths, political opinion and generalization. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
6. The Hungarian serial killing is an isolated case where the perpetrators were arrested. The National Socialist Underground also committed murders against the Turkish minority, but it not can be said that "the Turks are generally persecuted in Germany". For the Jobbik: according to the Hungarian Court, Jobbik is not a Neo-Nazi or fascist party. Or do you think the Hungarian court is also a racist and anti-Semitic? [15] --Norden1990 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Norden1990, I noticed you misunderstood what the Independent was saying about Echo TV. To make it clear:

5. The Independent didn't say that Echo TV is state-controlled. It actually called Echo TV, "pro-government." It said that the media watchdog that fined Echo TV is state-controlled. The Independent got its facts correct. It is, after all, a major UK newspaper.

I don't care that The Independent its a major UK newspaper. The above sentence is only a political opinion without reliable datas and facts. If I wrote an article for The Independent, the things I have described would be unquestionably true? The term of "watchdog" is also a POV. Journalism without actual data. Please, dont push the false claim that Romani people are generally persecuted in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that we cannot use reporting in the international press to guide what we place emphasis on in the article, or to guide factual statements in the article. European news sources talk about Szaniszló primarily in connection with the awards given to a number of racist figures, and his antisemitic and anti-Roma statements. If we cannot rely on the major UK, French and German newspapers, what sources should be be using? Can you suggest a better set of sources? -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Governmental reports (like CBSA), academic publications, articles with verifiable data, and it is very important to keep balance within the article. So, Ferenc Szaniszló has nothing to do with the singer of the Kárpátia. Hungary will be not a generally anti-semitic and racist country because of a person's statement. From there the United States is also a raging racist country... --Norden1990 (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the international press is not an acceptable source? Do I understand you correctly? In your opinion, can we use Le Monde, Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel, The Independent, or the New York Times? As far as I can tell, Szaniszló is only notable in the international press for the fact that he was one of a few racist figures given high state awards at a similar time. Almost all the relevant articles in the above newspapers, which are among the most respected in their countries, mention Szaniszló, Kárpátia and Bakay in the same breath. But I gather that you are not willing to use newspapers as sources at all. Is this correct? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Again: this article is about Ferenc Szaniszló and neither about the Táncsics Award, nor about the Hungarian Goverment's awarding policy, etc. Those articles have a much wider scope, so it does not really matter if they talk about other recipients, as well. Please, don't flood the article with political POVs. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Koertefa and Norden1990, are you unhappy with the sources I am using? They consider Szaniszlo notable for the reasons stated in the material I added to the article. You don't think that the other awards are relevant to Szaniszlo, but the sources disagree. What is more important, your opinion or that of international newspapers? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you could ignore personal attacks? I already listed above what are the reliable sources for this political issue. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've stated your view on the sources for clarity. That's not a personal attack. I'm finding it very difficult to get a straight answer from you, however, on whether major newspapers are valid sources. Based on what you've said, I don't think you believe that they are. Well, are they, or are they not? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For this political case, these articles are unreliable sources, especially when the above quotes are only political opinions of the journalist, who wrote the article ("persecuted Roma", "Hungary is an anti-semitic country" etc.). These are not part of the universal truth. Wikipedia should stay in historical and encyclopaedic context. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I provided a number of newspaper articles which said that the awarding of several high state awards to racists around the same time was viewed by many critics as an olive branch to the far Right. You and Koertefa have deleted that material. Are you saying that the New York Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung were in error in suggesting that that was a widespread view? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung are newspapers, however this is an encyclopedia. There is no reason to include the other prize winners in a biographical article on Ferenc Szaniszló. For example, imagine in the case of biographical article on Adolf Hitler: "Hitler was responsible for the murder of the Jews. At the same time Stalin also ordered many killings." --Norden1990 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The NYT and Süddeutsche Zeitung are reliable sources for the article. Like almost all international newspapers which have mentioned Szaniszló in any way, they think him notable for the fact that he is an anti-Semite who has been awarded a high honor in journalism from the Hungarian government. They also think it notable that a number of other racists and extreme right-wing figures were given high honors by the government at the same time. In fact, they think this notable enough that all the article I have come across that mention Szaniszló connect his award to the other awards. Whether or not you agree that this connection should be made is irrelevant. It is what the sources consider notable which is relevant. I'm sorry, but you're trying to overrule the sources with your own opinion, based on the fact that you think it reflects badly on Hungary. This is an encyclopedia. We document notable facts, whether they reflect well or badly on one country or another. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We misunderstand each other. This article is about Ferenc Szaniszló and not about other recipients. Anyway who decides what is and what is not reliable as a source? Please, try to stay nautral, which is one of the main pillars of the Wikipedia. "Persecuted Roma minoty" - without reliable bare facts it's only a POV political opinion. There aren't necessarily need accept everything that such The NYT is publishing. These are also could biased articles.... --Norden1990 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are the only way to create content here: that's a core policy of this encyclopedia. So far, we can verify that the Roma are discriminated against (in and outside of Hungary), and that simultaneous awards given by Orban's government to racist political figures in Hungary are not random, but rather linked, according to major American and European papers. In any event, I may be wrong, so I've placed a notice at the reliable source noticeboard so that other editors can help decide this. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree you decision, but your title also contains POV: not necessarily evident that Szaniszló or Jobbik would be fascist (see also the court's decision). --Norden1990 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

However they would certainly fall within the category of "far-right," and given the many sources quoted at the very top of this talk page, calling Jobbik fascistic seems almost conservative. -Darouet (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Jobbik is definitely a radical nationalist far-right party, but it does not mean automatically Fascism. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Are these sources reliable, and does their content merit inclusion?

Are newspapers describing discrimination against Roma biased? Does Hungarian political context, given by journalists writing an article about Ferenc Szaniszló, merit inclusion in this article about him? -Darouet (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note that this has also been posted on the reliable sources noticeboard. -Darouet (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An RfC was just finished few days ago, yet, you have lodged another one. Anyway, your questions are, unfortunately, misleading, and try to influence those editors who come here to help. The real question is whether in an article about person X we should mention person Y if their only connection is that they got (different, but governmental) awards in the same time, based on that some political analysts who criticize the current government see some mysterious connection between the events (that they got awards in the same time). I think that even if they were right (I have doubts), this would still be irrelevant for this article, as its scope is person X (in this case Ferenc Szaniszló) and not the awarding policy of the government. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Koertefa, I have to tell you that I'm beginning to lose patience here, because it is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith on your part. The scope of this article is Ferenc Szaniszló, and the most significant thing about him, according to the international press, is that he was awarded the Táncsics award, despite his antisemitic and anti-Roma statements. It's difficult to have a full view of this episode in his life, particularly how he could have received this award in the first place, without knowing that a number of like-minded individuals were awarded the prize at the same time. The international press links these various awards as part of a pattern, and readers should know that. An article about an individual is allowed to mention other individuals who are related. How could one write an article about, say, Mendelssohn, without also writing about J. S. Bach? Here, one cannot have a picture of the most notable event in Szaniszló's career without knowing about the context in which he received the Táncsics award.

This connection has been made clear to you several times, but you keep on falling back on the idea, "They are different people who received different awards at a similar time. They aren't relevant." I'm sure you understand the relevance, which, as the New York Times and the Süddeutsche Zeitung have stated, is that the various awards give the impression that Fidesz is courting Jobbik and its supporters. It is clearly relevant to this article why Szaniszló received this award, and what the international reaction to it was. Again, I am sure you understand this, and I shouldn't really have to explain it at such length over again. It looks very bad on your part; it looks like you are casting about for reasons to exclude material which you think casts Fidesz or Hungary in a bad light.

This impression is strengthened by the fact that you have added an "Undue Weight" tag to the article. You have not given any indication as to what, in Szaniszló's life or career, should have more weight. You haven't provided sources to show that he is notable for something other than the Táncsics award. Your entire involvement here has been to protest the inclusion of context to the award. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Thucydides411, I am sorry that you start loosing your patience, hope we can reach a consensus, soon. I truly think that the award winning-returning issue is a bit over-represented in the article, which gives it an undue weight. I think that you should not speculate about my personal motivations and assume good faith. Speculations like: "it looks like you are casting about for reasons to exclude material which you think casts Fidesz or Hungary in a bad light." does not lead us anywhere. For example, someone might say that "you are not here to improve the article about Mr. Szaniszló, but only to push your political POV and rage a smear campaign". Stating such things would only lead to personal attacks, while our aim here is to reach an agreement and improve the article. I, of course, understand that some journalists see some pattern in the awards given by the current Hungarian government, and this information may even be relevant for an article which, e.g., talks about general criticism of the government, but these theories are certainly out of the scope of this article, which focuses on Mr. Szaniszló. The reason of the award is relevant, but it is already stated in the article. Mr. Szaniszló originally received the award for his earlier work, including reports on the fall of the Soviet Union and the Yugoslav Wars. I do not think that speculations about hidden motivations of the government should be included, but if you find a source for that, we can talk about this (which explicitly states a hidden reason for awarding Mr. Szaniszló). Regarding your claim that "An article about an individual is allowed to mention other individuals who are related.", the question is *what* their relation is. You can find *some* relation between almost anybody. Mendelssohn and Bach have much more in common than Mr. Szaniszló and the guys you want to force into this article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: One more remark: there is no such thing as the "opinion of the international press". There are only journalist X[1] writing in newspaper Y[1] in country Z[1], and journalist X[2] writing in newspaper Y[2] in country Z[2], etc. They are just individuals, and even if some of those individuals see the world in a similar way, those individuals are not equal to the whole international press. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is only possible when the other editor makes at least some token attempt to engage constructively. You have not done so. Here is a prime example: "I do not think that speculations about hidden motivations of the government should be included, but if you find a source for that, we can talk about this (which explicitly states a hidden reason for awarding Mr. Szaniszló)." You removed the sentence linking Szaniszló and the other award recipients. You may have noticed that there were two citations on that sentence. You should already be familiar with the sources, since you deleted the material, but your above statement gives the impression that you are not familiar with them. Here are the relevant passages:

• "Janos Petras, the lead singer of Karpatia, who composed the anthem for Jobbik’s paramilitary wing, calling for an “immaculate nation” and the expansion of Hungary’s borders, was also given an award. Although protests in Hungary and abroad led to Mr. Szaniszlo returning the award, the feeling that Fidesz is courting Jobbik supporters remains." --New York Times, 4 April 2013
• "Critics suspect a gesture of friendship from the conservative government to the extreme Right Wing: The Hungarian state honors several racists and conspiracy theorists with state orders and medals. The minister responsible [for the awards] is confronted with a public relations crisis." --Süddeutsche Zeitung, 17 March 2013 (translated from German)
• Later on in the same article: "Zoltan Balog, who as Minister for Human Resources is responsible for the awarding of the prizes, called the honoring of Szaniszló 'regrettable.' He didn't know about the antisemitic statements by the TV personality, he said. There is, however, no legal means for recalling the prize, he said. Balog did not comment on the other controversial awards."
• Next paragraph in the same article: "Opposition commentators judge the honoring of extreme right-wing personalities as a gesture by the government to Jobbik and the extreme Right."

Did you read these articles? If so, why are you acting as if the linking of the various awards is unsourced? Your previous statement is also troubling: "The reason of the award is relevant, but it is already stated in the article. Mr. Szaniszló originally received the award for his earlier work, including reports on the fall of the Soviet Union and the Yugoslav Wars." You'd like us to ignore what the New York Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung say, and just repeat verbatim what Balog says the award was given for.

Again, the fact that you're removing material without giving any regard to the sources makes it's pretty clear what you're here to do - you're here to prevent what you call a "political witch-hunt," in which Fidesz and Jobbik are linked ([16]). No editor here is linking the two - the sources are. The sources discuss the reasons for the awards, and they discuss the possibility of a gesture by Fidesz towards Jobbik. That's notable, and relevant to Szaniszló's award. If you consider any sort of background to the award to be a smear campaign, you probably are too politically invested to edit faithfully here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"feeling that Fidesz is courting Jobbik supporters remains"; "critics suspect a gesture of friendship..."; "Opposition commentators judge the honoring of extreme right-wing personalities as a gesture by the government to Jobbik and the extreme Right.". These are only speculations, political opinions, and not unquestioned facts. Anyway I was the one who called this case as "political witch-hunt". I reserve my opinion. And please, avoid downgrade of debate partners and personal attacks. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Norden1990. I just ignore Thucydides411's irrelevant personal remarks, and go right to the point. Naturally, I still think that mentioning the other guys are completely out of the scope of this article, and hence I do not support this. However, I would support adding something like "Critics suspect a gesture of friendship from the conservative government to the extreme Right Wing" which is a sourced fact. Some critics really suspected that with respect to Szaniszló's award (even though the Minister of Human Resources stated that he only later learned of Szaniszló's extremist remarks), thus we can mention this. That could be a consensus we can agree on. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a context to the award given to Szaniszló, which is dealt with by all of the news articles I have been able to find on the subject. As the news articles state, that context includes the near-simultaneous granting of awards by the same minister to other people of similar persuasion. Not mentioning this context is doing a disservice to people who come to this page to read about Szaniszló. Koertefa, you have yet to articulate why we should disregard the news sources on this issue. We obviously cannot follow Norden1990's position that newspapers are an inappropriate source, so you need to lay out some other reason. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, something very similar to what Koertefa wrote would I think be appropriate, referencing only facts and major newspapers: "Citing simultaneous awards given to Bakay and Petras, critics suspect a gesture of friendship from the conservative Fidesz government to the extreme right-wing." That would give readers a highly condensed summary of all the many articles written in the press, and allow them to investigate further, or not, but certainly make up their own minds. Also, I'd like to assure you Norden that I have nothing against Hungary and am not engaged in a witch hunt against it. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I could agree with presenting a condensed sentence like that about the critcisms of "courting the extreme right-wing", and could even agree with Darouet's version (even though it mentions Bakay and Petras). However, as this article is primarily about Szaniszló and neither about the current Hungarian government nor about state awards, etc., presenting more about this would surely make the article more unbalanced. Thucydides411 and Norden1990, what do you think about Darouet's variant? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Darouet's version begs the question: Who are Bakay and Petras, and why would giving them awards give the impression that the government is courting the extreme right wing? Of course they should be mentioned, but without a sentence explaining who they are, the reference is confusing. In my since reverted addition to the article ([17] and [18]), I attempted to mention these two figures in as little space as possible. I think that version represented what the sources said well. Here it is again:

Alongside the prize awarded to Szaniszló, the Order of Merit was awarded to Kornél Bakay, an archaeologist who has claimed that Jesus was not Jewish, but a Parthian, and the Golden Cross was awarded to Janos Petras, lead singer of the rock band Kárpátia, known for its close ties to Jobbik and support for territorial expansion of Hungary.[19][20] Critics suggested that the granting of these awards was an olive branch by the Fidesz government to the extreme right wing political scene.

I don't see a problem with balance here. Given the sources we have, Szaniszló is notable because of the Táncsics prize and the ensuing scandal, and not much else. Unless we find that the sources we are presently using are unrepresentative of media coverage of Szaniszló, the prize deserves the majority of the article. Koertefa, if you believe there is a balance issue, could you provide sources that demonstrate that Szaniszló is notable for something other than the prize, or the scandal it caused? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this modification. This article is a biography of Ferenc Szaniszló and nothing to do with the other recipients. Yes, Kornél Bakay and János Petrás were also awarded this prize, but there is only speculation and politically motivated theory that "the granting of these awards was an olive branch by the Fidesz government to the extreme right wing political scene." Szaniszló received the award because of his journalistic activity during the Yugoslav wars. I could accept the version of Darouet, but Thucydided411's proposal would upset the balance. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: moreover the two referred people received completely different merits, so there's nothing to talk about. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Norden, as far as editing goes, it's not of much interest whether you personally think the awards given to Petrás and Bakay are related in some way to the award given to Szaniszló. It's also of little interest whether you think the speculations about the government's motives are valid or relevant. What's of interest is what the sources consider relevant and important. Almost all the sources we have so far deal with the other award recipients, and several discuss the possible connections between the awards explicitly (rather than implicitly suggesting a connection by talking about them in the same breath). You also say my proposed two sentences tip the balance of the article. If you think the article is becoming unbalanced, could you provide sources to establish where the balance should be? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no sources, but only political opinions. This is an encyclopedia, and not a political article, where certain theories and speculations are taken for granted. It's also of little interest whether you think the suspicion of government's critics about the government's motives are valid or relevant. To I reverse your "argument" to some extent. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Norden, I don't follow you any more. The edits I made to the article don't state anyone's opinion as fact. They note what was widely reported by reputable newspapers - that a number of racists were given awards alongside Szaniszló, leading critics of the government to suggest a political motive behind the awards. That statement is very well sourced above. The edits I made didn't say anything about the validity of that position - they merely noted the position, since it's been widely reported on. It's simply incredible that you keep claiming that there are no sources for the edits I made. They were included in the edits, and I've reposted them on this talk page several times now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I also do not support Thucydides411's version, for the same reasons I told several times before. However, Darouet's suggestion looks like a good compromise, since it mentions the critics, even names the other controversial recipients, but tries not to give an undue weight to them. It is a *compromise*, since, e.g., I think that the other recipients should not be mentioned at all in *this* article about Mr. Szaniszló, because their connection is so weak (based only on political speculations). Nevertheless, I can accept Darouet's variant, so we can get out of the deadlock. Please note that since it is also acceptable by Norden1990, it is supported by 3 out of 4 editors most active in this dispute. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked countless times now for Koertefa and Norden1990 to make a case, on the basis of sources, that mentioning the other awards unbalances the article, or to argue on the basis of sources where the balance of the article should lie. They are unwilling to discuss sources, or to make a case on the basis of sources. They now consider it a 'compromise' to mention what every news source reported on, although they will not allow that the article to provide the basic background, i.e. who Petrás and Bakay are, that would make that mention understandable to readers. Given Koertefa and Norden1990's complete unwillingness to deal with the sources, or to allow the sources to guide the article, and given Koertefa's discussion on their talk page ([21]), one can only conclude that their goals on this page are political. As such, further discussion with them on this point is futile. They will continue to ignore any discussion of what the sources say, and continue to object to material they find politically troubling. I request that they do one of two things: 1. Accept that Wikipedia is guided by what reliable sources say, and not subject to political censorship by cliques, or 2. Relieve themselves from further editing of this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You continue making personal attacks, instead of use of valid arguments. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Norden, Thucydides isn't attacking you. -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, one lesson I learned a while ago is that even if it helps with compromise, changes shouldn't be made to an article that aren't rigorously supported by sources. We now have a few lists of sources on this talk page; are there any others that we really must consider? If so, please post them here. I'll also do some more searching. Norden, Koertefa, I have a feeling you both might read Hungarian... if that's the case, please feel free to post articles (but not blogs or editorials, obviously) from major Hungarian newspapers. Thucydides, perhaps you could do more searching in sources as well. I think a master list might help. -Darouet (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone still oppose calling the Roma "persecuted" or "ostracized" here? -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Due Weight: Analysis of Sources

Overview

Neutrality on Wikipedia requires that encyclopedia articles present material and viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This section is dedicated to presenting world news articles concerning Ferenc Szaniszlo, in order to determine proper weight in our encyclopedia article. Please contribute as you can, but note that blogs or opinion pieces are not reliable sources.

Szaniszló is notable for:

1. USSR, Yugoslavia correspondent: 5/26 articles, or 19% of coverage
2. Received, returned Tancsics prize: 23/26 articles, or 88% of coverage
3. Orban and Hungarian right politics: 14/26 articles, or 54% of coverage

Sources

English:

• The New York Times, [22]: 2, 3

• The Independent, [23]: 2, 3

• BBC, [24]: 2, 3

• Euronews, [25]: 2

• Arutz Sheva, [26]: 2

• Haaretz, [27]: 2

• Haaretz, [28]: 2, 3

• Reuters, [29]: 1, 2

Hungarian:

• Index.hu, [30]: 1, 2

• Magyar Hírlap, [31]: 2

• Holy Cross Radio, [32]: 2

• ATV (Hungary), [33]: 2

German:

• Tagesschau (Germany), [34]: 1, 2, 3

• Der Tagesspiegel, [35]: 2, 3

• Die Zeit, [36]: 2, 3

• Süddeutsche Zeitung, [37]: 2, 3

French:

• Le Figaro, [38]: 2, 3

• Le Monde, [39]: 2, 3

Italian:

• Today.it, [40]: 2

• la Repubblica, [41]: 2, 3

• L'Independenza, [42]: 2, 3

Dutch:

• de Volkskrant, [43]: 2, 3

Czech:

• Novinky.cz, [44]: 2, 3

Archived:

• When researching this article previously, I found three articles that were reposted by the BBC, one by Szaniszló himself, the other two featuring him as a correspondent. Though these are not about Szaniszló, I am noting them here, because I have seen others write that Szaniszló was known and maybe even awarded for his earlier work. This should be verified; if anyone objects to including these articles in the total count, please do so below.

Discussion

I will update the numbers and search for more sources shortly. Help with Hungarian articles will be appreciated (I don't trust google translate for this). -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Right now in this article, compared to coverage in the press, the significance of Szaniszló's award within the context of Hungarian politics is completely dropped, and more which could be written about the Tancsics affair is omitted. We do have, however, a plethora of sources in multiple languages, and I'd like to add this material. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed one unreliable source (Balog's personal website), and restored the word "persecuted" to describe the Roma, following sources. I'll hope to correct the article further shortly, and won't remove the WP:DUE tag until I've done so, as this article clearly doesn't represent viewpoints in proportion to those of reliable sources. -Darouet (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have, at last, implemented these long overdue changes. -Darouet (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should check WP:BIO. This article is about Ferenc Szaniszló, and only about him, and not about the situation of Romani people in Hungary, a rock band singer or a historian. Write a spearate article under the title of Táncsics award for these sections. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Take it here WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ferenc Szaniszló; I can't value your personal feelings about the Romani or Hungarian politics more than the evaluation of reliable, published sources. Also, if you want to say that Szaniszló received the award for his prior journalism, you'll have to find reliable sources to support that claim. The articles you removed from Le Monde, Der Tagesspiegel, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, The New York Times, la Repubblica, Die Zeit and l'Indipendenza all argue otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Discrimination" a "malicious" term?

In this edit, Ltbuni removed the description of the Roma as "discriminated against," explaining that this description was a "malicious overgeneralization" in their edit summary.

Two sources that describe Szaniszló's reference to the Roma as "human monkeys" and to the Jews as "garbage" - The Independent and The New York Times [45][46] - refer to the Roma as "ostracized." Clearly these newspapers see the position of the Roma in Hungarian society as an important part of the context of the event: it is far more problematic if a prominent TV personality attacks a relatively powerless minority, and not a relatively more powerful majority.

Instead of following the WP:BRD cycle Ltbuni has chosen to revert war, never addressing the issue here on the talk page. So I'm making an entry for them here, to follow up on.

Ltbuni, why do you consider "discrimination" against the Roma to be a "malicious" (your term) and effectively false ("overgeneralization" - again your term) description? Are newspapers therefore malicious and overgeneralizing? Do you have any reliable sources stating that the Roma are not discriminated against? If they are, do you have any reason to believe that discrimination is irrelevant to the Szaniszló case? -Darouet (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do You think it is relevant? "Why could not we add to the article that "who face discrimination and have musical talent" as well? The page was about Ferenc Szaniszló, not the situation of the romani people, not rockstars, not archeologists, as You kept suggesting.

The situation of the roma is far more complex, than just "who face discrimination" - . Adding only this was malicious, not the fact itself they are discriminated.

Finally, Why did not You mention that I added a link to the Romani people in Hungary page, where the whole story is covered? For example: discrimination, violence against them, self government, lots of money, crimes committed by them etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni, read what I wrote above: when a TV figure attacks a minority, their musical talent is irrelevant, but discrimination against them is very real. Szaniszló's comment has no impact on Roma music, but it contributes to discrimination. The New York Times and The Independent state that the Roma are ostracized in Hungary. Ltbuni: why do they mention this? Is it irrelevant? Why don't these newspapers mention Roma musical talent?

Repeated failure to understand something so simple - e.g. why a prominent media personality attacking a minority is related to discrimination, but not musical talent - strikes me as a major WP:COMPETENCE problem. Even if you didn't understand this yourself intuitively, newspapers, which are the basis of our content, are doing it for you, and even those have no impact on your understanding here. -Darouet (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Still not see Your point. The link I added Romani people in Hungary sheds light on every aspect of Romani-non Romani relations - including discrimination, why to repeat it? Or this whole article is to demonstrate how much they suffer, and how racist Szaniszló is?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni I actually think there is a canvassing problem that must be addressed before anything else - I've been looking back over many months and I've never seen such an explicit example of canvassing on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Dude, that won't work here. You're cooperating with Thukydides411. Stop soapboxing, stop POV pushing, stop being a Social Justice Warrior.--Ltbuni (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni, your canvassing and political diatribes are really a problem. I'm giving you fair notice that if they continue, I'm going to go down the administrative route. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's go!--Ltbuni (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's my two cents, having been brought here from ANI: I feel that the removal was appropriate as a WP:COAT, because the passage, being about the ethnic group, was not about the subject of the article.

It would be appropriate in, for example, a "Reaction" section to add a quote like: Steve Jobs said in an interview that Szaniszló's remarks were "an unacceptable affront to a group already facing significant discrimination." In this case, the comment by Steve Jobs' ghost is about Szaniszló directly, not about the Roma.

As another example in the article on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, the lead includes his comments calling Mexicans criminals, drug dealers, and rapists (an obviously racist remark), but the article does not go on to comment about the general plight of Mexican Americans, because the article is about Trump's campaign, and not about the larger issues of race relations in the US. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fair, though I think the situation is a little different in Hungary, with the Roma, compared to immigrants in the US. That's reflected in reliable sources: most media, when they write about Trump's comments, won't talk about the situation facing immigrants in the states. When media write about the Roma in Hungary or Europe more generally, I think they're more likely to mention some kind of persecution. If it's important to note that the Roma are discriminated against, I can see if more sources (beyond the NYT and Independent) specifically mention this when writing about Szaniszló. I was mostly touchy about this because previous efforts to remove the term focused on the idea that the Roma aren't persecuted - and that intimation was also made by Ltbuni in their removal. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The core issue, and this covers your comment below as well, is that information on Ferenc Szaniszló should be added to the article on Ferenc Szaniszló. Information on the Romani people should be added to the article on the Romani people. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hate politics are defined by hatred of an other, to use the academic phrase. The situation faced by Roma is the reason Szaniszló's comments get international press. It's the reason the press write about Szaniszló and Roma ostracization in the same breath. We're not obliged to follow major sources in every way, but are they incorrect? -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I also believe it's not a coincidence that Norden and Ltbuni request the removal of the term because they don't believe the Roma are ostracized, and believe the media are wrong. -Darouet (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I asked dispute resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ferenc_Szaniszl.25C3.25B3_discussion

Anyone, feel free to join us. --Ltbuni (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

We already had a dispute resolution on this exact same topic three years ago. -Darouet (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

McDougall reference

• McDougall, Gay. "Human Rights Council: Fourth Session" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved 28 May 2013.

I am moving this reference here in case it may be reincorporated in the article, as it was it did not appear to directly support any content in the article.

Also, please all review guidelines at WP:COPYQUOTE, and note that a 200+ word quote from a source is very likely a copyright violation. Quotes from copyrighted sources, when used, should be the minimum length necessary to convey the information required. TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, we already have sources related to Szaniszló that state the same, in brief. The source was only added because Norden insisted here that "gypsies were lying" about persecution and that The Independent was a biased source. -Darouet (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the section on the award. Everything the least bit controversial should now be directly quoted and attributed to the "voice" of a source. A brief digression into Hungarian politics generally was removed, because, as had been addressed elsewhere, Hungarian politics are not the subject of this article.

I also removed this part:

Socialist opposition MP István Nyakó called the award a political calculation seeking "the applause of the extreme right," a criticism raised by some European newspapers.

References

The individual seems relevant, as does the quote. However, I was unable to verify which reference was the source of the quote, I assume, because it was non-English. This can still be included per WP:NOENG, but will need to be identified and the original Hungarian will need to be added as a footnote if no English translation can be found from a secondary source. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for rewriting. I will take a look at the Nyakó's comment, and translate it--Ltbuni (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing

@Timothyjosephwood: your edit removes the most widely covered aspects of Szaniszló's fame, which have been covered in the largest newspapers in the world: that he referred to Jews as garbage, and Roma as monkeys, before receiving the award. Why did you remove these statements by Szaniszló ?

You edit also removes all context for the event given by every one of those major newspapers, and also removes a third of the references. In this sense it is a whitewashing of Szaniszló and his notoriety. I think any major change of this kind, especially in the context of an ANI dispute, definitely needs discussion before even partial implementation. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding back that bit corrects the most egregious error, thank you. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair enough. I have added back the specific quotes per the sources. I have also added the sources back, but have condensed them into a list under a single ref to avoid the problem of WP:OVERCITE. Anyone take issue with anything else or have other suggestions? TimothyJosephWood 18:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the political context of the award should be added back into the article, since it was prominent in international coverage of the event. Specifically, the award was seen as an effort by the Orban government to court the far-right. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I addressed this immediately above, saying I thought it was relevant, but couldn't find which reference it was sourced to. Help in that area would be appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't find one of the original (German) articles, and don't know if another source can be found for the Nyako quote - I haven't found one (there may be some in Hungarian). But the statements by the various media might be used:

• NYT: "Although protests in Hungary and abroad led to Mr. Szaniszlo returning the award, the feeling that Fidesz is courting Jobbik supporters remains."
• SZ: "Critics suspect a friendship between the conservative government and the right-wing extremist scene: the Hungarian state honors several racists and conspiracy theorists with state medals and medals."
• Figaro: "Hungary: Victor Orban honors the extreme right... The Hungarian Prime Minister is not an extremist. But legislatively, he doesn't hesitate to compromise himself to reconquer territory lost to Jobbik."
• Zeit: "Oppositional commentators think honoring right-wing extremist figures is a government gesture to Jobbik and the extreme right."
• Repubblica: "The Tancics Prize, traditionally an important award for the best journalists, was awarded to Ferenc Szanizslò, commentator on Echo TV, considered close to Fidesz, the party to Orbán, and known for promoting overtly racist theses in public... The Orbán government cultural policy has long been oriented towards extremism. The government has in fact rehabilitated Miklòs Admiral Horthy, that is, the anti-Semitic dictator who was the most efficient and zealous ally of Hitler in Europe, and a major accomplice of the Holocaust and war against the USSR."
• Star: "The [World Jewish Congress] holding its meeting in Budapest is a “strong signal” that Hungary is on a “dangerous track,” President Ronald S. Lauder said in an article published by Suddeutsche Zeitung... Lauder, in his article, said Orban “panders to the far- right fringe of Hungarian politics...” In March, the government decorated television journalist Ferenc Szaniszlo, whose program was fined for anti-Semitic and anti-Roma messages."

Unfortunately, quite a few links used in the past are now broken. -Darouet (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

These are only biased editorial opinions. "Miklòs Admiral Horthy, that is, the anti-Semitic dictator who was the most efficient and zealous ally of Hitler in Europe" OMG :D. Le Figaro source even is not able to write correctly Orbán's name (or you Darouet, again and again...). Only Lauder's opinion is notable, we can include it. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

While is is probably enough material to add a section to something like Jobbik#Other issues, it's still a lot of of information about the government, about Hungarian politics, but not about the subject of the WP:BLP...which...lest we forget, must adhere to BLP standards. TimothyJosephWood 20:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you think these publications are sufficient to write, "According to critics, the Orban government awarded Szanizslò the Táncsics prize in an effort to court far-right voters." ? It's not that I'm wedded to it, but it seems to be a theme. Citing Lauder would also be an option. -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The first problem is that you don't actually have a source that says that, even paraphrasing. You have sources that state something about the subject, and then give the larger socio-political context, which journalists are obliged to do, but which WP is forbidden from, especially on a WP:BLP. Your argument would be stronger on an article about a war, strike, or political party. But this is an article about a person, and for legal reasons, there are restrictions there. TimothyJosephWood 01:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

For context see Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. TimothyJosephWood 01:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian article

Looking at the corresponding article in Hungarian (machine translated), it cites Szaniszló as the recipient of four awards: Europe's Medal, Táncsics Mihály Award, Hungarian Nation Silver medal, and Pongrátz Gregory Cross of Merit, but none of this seems to be provided in the references. I haven't found another source, for the other awards, probably because I'm searching for a badly translated name. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Some words

1. Why is the reference to Samira Ibrahim missing? Pretty relevant... 2. Why did not you add the link Romani People in Hungary? 3. Why is there a map of the romani population? How about Szaniszló's picture? It's his article however...Or a photo of the Táncsics prize - the article deals with? --Ltbuni (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Ibrahim was removed along with other content that wasn't directly about the subject of the article. As has been stated to, I believe, every editor here, content in this article should be directly about Ferenc Szaniszló. Related issues of race relations in Hungary, or US foreign policy in Egypt belong on those main articles, not on the biography of a journalist.
2. The Romani link was removed, if I'm not mistaken, along with a number of other links because guidance at MOS:QUOTE recommends against including links in direct quotations, as it may change the meaning of the quotation. It has been readded at the bottom of the article in the "See also" section.
3. There are currently no pictures available for free public use on Wikimedia Commons relating to either Szaniszló or the Táncsics prize. This is why they have not been added. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)