Talk:Jobbik/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pre-AUGUST 2009

Sources

I like the "source" link of Magyar Narancs, an (ultra)liberal newspaper. I think it is a quite qood idea, and it is the quintessence of neutral point of view to use a liberal newspaper as resource on an article discussing an anti-liberal party. ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2006. August 16 15:35 (CEST) 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Neo-nazi and anti-semite

I am surprised not to find any information about their neo-nazi and anti-semite dogma. Anyone care to improve this term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.237.212 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$ Calling them neonazis is a defamation after all, i see them with my own eyes, benen there, and you libel my country with lies, "wikipedists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.44.57 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted "Anti-Semitism" 'cause it's libelous content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpiggio (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Properly sourced and cited, it is not libel. Please review the definition of libel. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Its fascist aspects should be elaborated more, if a party is anti-system and calls for human rights limitation to certain social groups its more than just labeled fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the Hungarian wikipedia entry for this Hungarian party. [1]
It lists the "Ideology" as:
Nationalism (nacionalizmus)
Euroscepticism (euroszkepticizmus)
Christian Democracy (kereszténydemokrácia)
National Radicalsim (nemzeti radikalizmus)

Controversial allegations such as anti-semitism, facism etc. are more correctly dealt with in the "controversy" section of the article. And clearly should not form part of the defining sidebar when the party actively denies such allegations.

Allegations are not sufficient for the incontravertable truthfullness impression that the sidebar gives. It is bad practise to define a political party by terms that are either used exclusively by its opponents, or (as evidenced by the Hungarian language article) are clearly en.wiki-centric.

A previous user has stated, "I am surprised not to find any information about their neo-nazi and anti-semite dogma." There is a very good reason for this, there is no such dogma.

Tedhovis (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider London Times to be an opponent of Jobbik's?  wlad 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider the London Times to be a Murdoch owned newspaper. Interested in selling as many copies as possible; who have a far-from unblemished record of unbiased veracity when it comes to Eastern European stories. The Times' journalists if they do visit Hungary at all, do not venture out of Budapest. And while in Budapest they speak only to Jobbik's opponents. (I am a Hungarian journalist myself and know this for a fact.)

In any case I am not questioning the inclusion of this material(!). Merely its location within the authoratative sidebar. It should indeed be a matter for further examination, but in the controversy section further down in the body of the article.

Hungary has more than enough newspapers and websites of its own, none of which are sympathetic to this party. Therefore, if the Hungarian wikipedia entry does not consider these three labels "Right-wing extremism, Antisemitism, Fascism" to be accurate and worthy of inclusion into their sidebar then they certainly have no justifiable place here whatsoever. Q.E.D.

Tedhovis (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What the Hungarian wiki does or does not contain is irrelevant here. The epithets are sourced, if you find some relevant sources disproving this, please introduce them. Otherwise the info must remain.  wlad —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

"Epithets" are all well and good. And for the umpteenth time I have no objection to their inclusion provided this takes place in the right place in the article. What is uncontrovertably objectionable is the use of what is alleged, in the Sidebar, as if it were some sort of definitive factual description of ideology. It is no such thing.Tedhovis (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?!

The entire article is written in a biased, pro-right tone and should be re-written entirely.

The introduction states they are a right-wing party, which should be changed to extremist/radical/etc., "right wing" alone (without any other reference) should be FIDESZ or MDF if you may.

The Hungarian Guard section fails to mention the numerous antisemitic accusations, simply describing the Guard as some sort of historical neighbor watch...

The antisemitism, anti-European claims are being dealt with in one single sentence, which is pretty much the most important issue with Jobbik in the Hungarian political scene.

Krisztina Morvai is not just "one of the party's candidates in the 2009 elections to the European parliament", but the leader of the EP list of the party which should be noted.

Vernazza (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"The antisemitism, anti-European claims are being dealt with in one single sentence, which is pretty much the most important issue with Jobbik in the Hungarian political scene."

This is simply not the case. The anti-semitism of some members, (the most famous allegation of anti-semitism is against Marovai and she isn't even a party memeber) is the most important issue to foreign journalists but not for the "Hungarian political scene" as you suggest. Anti-semitism is rife in Hungary irrespective of political affiliation.

The pressing issues that gave Jobbik the near 15% Euro-mandate were land ownership, multi-nationals, state corruption and law and order. Please consult this subtitled EP election campaign video.[2] These were the reasons why the party was voted for; and these issues require much more examination in the article.
Tedhovis (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nagy-Magyarország

Nagy-Magyarország kívánása nem konzervativizmus hanem revizionizmus!!! Ennyire azért nem kéne dilettánsnak lenni! (mégha ez is a dilettantizmus enciklopédiája)

Wishing Greater Hungary is not conservativism, it is revisionism !!! Do not be such a dilettant! (even if this is the lexicon of dilettantism) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.19.18 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Then is for you wishing of resurrection of the Third Reich too revisionism??? No, its extremism and at least ultraconservativism, wishing of Greater Hungary means enslaving many free and independent nations like Slovakia, Romania etc, which IS FASCISTIC AGGRESSION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molny9691 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Article written well and ballanced

The articles been drawn fairly. For some reason the radical left wants all articles to do with the right to be written negative. The article is proper, and is not biased in favor or against. I personally think all articles should be written from the persepctive and in goodlight of that particular organizatioon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No way, the article is not well-balanced. For example, it states that Jobbik is the only party that considers the interests of Hungarians living outside Hungary, which, while may be considered true by some, is a highly debatable subjective truth.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and as such, should contain undisputed truths, not party rhetoric (propaganda, if you will) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.158.153 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The website "jewssagainstzionism" is not considered a reliable source and has not been allowed as a source on anything but the article about them (Neturei Karta) per WP:RS. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gipsy crime

"Gipsy crime in this sense is used to refer to criminal acts committed by members of the Romani community, which is usually seen to be caused by prevalence of poor economic status among that group."

As far as I know, gipsy crime means the ways of commiting crimes most typical for gipsies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.242.95 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Gipsy crime" is a racist term frequently used by a... racist Jobbik? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.24.172.30 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess young people should be outraged when someone uses the term Juvenile crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.125.201 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

International connections: Iran

It has been suggested [3] that the party have connections to the Iranian powers (along with other Iranian terrorist organisations, including money flow). It hasn't been proven or disproven so far, as far as I know, which is not much. :-) Just leaving here as a sidenote. Time will tell. --grin ✎ 11:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-AUGUST 2009: Revision Project

Article NPOV dispute

25 August 2009 76.64.192.214 added a NPOV dispute template. Saying, "This entire article reads like a "we are not racist" statement." I would urge them to:

1. Do as the template reads and actually ADD to this talk page, if they have any questions over the quality of research or the authoratative nature of the sources used.

2. Be conscious of this quote from the Wikipedia:NPOVD page:

"Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral."

Therefore please locate any attributable racist statements, and feel free to add them to the article.

Tedhovis (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

18 September 2009 70.105.221.208 added an NPOV header. Again without contributing to this talk page, as the NPOV header text clearly demands, with the words, "Please see the discussion on the talk page."

Therefore it has been summarily removed.

Tedhovis (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

19 August 2009
1. Potential piece of blanking vandalism?
A user blanked an article with 54 references back to one with 17, without a single word of justification on this talk page. It is suggested that the edits that were reverted added balance and additional information in a good faith effort to provide content (as outlined in detail below in Proposal for Revision). Each source: was cited, each claim: justified, each assertion: balanced with a counter. In compliance with wikipedia's vandalism policy, a comment was made on the user's talk page. Tedhovis (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Uw-vandalism1?
Wikipedia defines Vandalism as “any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.” I argue that three efforts were made to impair the balance, references and crucially - informative content - of the Lead, from IP address 74.14.71.144 The ‘integrity compromise’ suggestion comes from the information the user attempted to remove being: informative. Again, the user made no effort to contribute to the Talk Page, either before or after their edits. Tedhovis (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

27 August 2009
1. Persistent (see 19 August "1." above) vandalism by Wladthemlat?
Has forced the use of a Uw-delete3 template; this user has persistently attempted to change the lead. Despite the lead being subject to an independent NPOV review, and a very detailed discussion about this review on the Talk Page here; they continue to change the lead and remove relevant and scholarly references without any contribution whatsoever to the appropriate section here at the talk page. The text of the warnind on their talk page reads:

"Please be kind enough to desist in your persistent efforts to alter the Lead to this article. This article is about this party, their views, and their critics. It is not about Slovakia. If you want to start a separate article entitled “Slovakian criticism of Jobbik” please do so, if not, partisan opinions are best confined to the appropriate controversy section of the article. Because...

a. You have persistently attempted to dishonestly change this lead.

b. You continue to ignore the clear request in the lead which reads “Please consult and contribute to the discussion on the Talk Page concerning this Lead at (2.5.1) before considering altering or editing the text below.” You have chosen not to contribute to the talk page discussion about the lead once.

c. Had you consulted the Talk Page you would have seen that this Lead has already been the subject of an NPOV dispute and independent NPOV review. Since when it has remained in this form.

d. Therefore please do not attempt to change it again.

I do not spend considerable time researching detailed scholarly paginated and quoted book citations by the acknowledged experts in their field, for you to come and remove them to service a non-Neutral agenda without even bothering to contribute to the discussion on the talk page.

I continue to look forward to a contribution from you in the relevant part of the talk page." Tedhovis (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Revision

Clearly this article lacks a lot in terms of details and references; and proper English grammar. (Unsurprising given the lack of English language resources, and the limited scope of those that exist.) I therefore propose a thorough revision of it. And will carry this out over the coming months. I have no intention of just making this a portal for the verbatim repetition of un-countered accusations by left-wing news media or blogs. I hope we can all agree that people don’t come to Wikipedia expecting a confirmation of things they already “know;” rather they come to find out things they do not. At the same time however, there is also an argument to be made that many charges levied against Jobbik (particularly by the Hungarian press) have simply not been included in sufficient detail here either.

Consequently, if there exists a defence to accusations that have been made against the party, it is only proper, for the sake of balance, that these at least be given lip service; if one also includes the accusation. If this can only be accomplished by reference to a Hungarian language source I will endeavour to provide an original quote and English language translation in the citation; in order to aid verification.

Specifically with respect to allegations, it is clear from the article that these focus almost entirely on the anti-Semitism and “Fascist” angle; to the virtual exclusion of the Roma issue which is much more pressing. It is understandably anglo-centric to speak about the former (and it should indeed be covered) but much more detail needs to be provided about the latter: which clearly takes up the most time in the Hungarian media. Especially given the spate of recent attacks.[4][5][6]

Also one is left with the impression that the party’s phenomenal electoral growth has been down to voters sympathising with these negative accusations. In short, as if people had voted for it for the reasons it is being criticised for.

This is because the article contains virtually no information about the party’s ideology (unsurprising given there is not even an English Wikipedia version of the Hungarian article on the broader movement of Hungarian “radical nationalism”) or more crucially their actual policies. Nothing in detail is said here about their anti-globalist stance, their EU scepticism, their position on land ownership, criticism of recent Hungarian cultural changes, state and judicial corruption, the economy and the IMF intervention, and most importantly (I can confirm as a central-European journalist) their alleged irredentism: which has the broadest and most immediate geo-political ramifications.

The article also crucially lacks a lot of basic information.

Therefore, I propose augmenting the current layout from this (as it now stands):

0. Lead

1. Self-definition

2. History and activities

3. The Hungarian Guard

4. Controversy

5. Election results

5.1 For Hungarian Parliament

5.2 For European Parliament

5.3 Municipal

6. International relations

To this (it should be noted, I will NOT remove any existing remark or references; merely re-locate them to a more systematic place providing with more referenced detail if necessary.)

0. Lead

1. History and Development

1.1 Foundation

1.2 Alliances

1.3 October 2006

1.4 Growth and Electoral Success

2. Issues and Ideology

2.1 Linguistic clarifications

2.2 Radical nationalism

2.3 The “Establishment”

2.4 Cultural conservatism

3. Policy position

3.1 The European Union

3.2 The Economy

3.3 Hungarian minorities

3.4 Law and Order

4. Controversy

4.1 The Hungarian Guard

4.2 The Roma issue

4.3 Allegations of Fascism

4.4 Charges of Anti-Semitism

5. Election results (remains unchanged)

5.1 For Hungarian Parliament

5.2 For European Parliament

5.3 Municipal

(Deleted: 6. International relations, because content regarding the BNP should more correctly be moved to the controversy section 4.3)

The justification for this new layout is self-evidently thematic. We go from the former disorganised one, to one in which we (1) describe the party, (2) say what it has done, (3) say what it plans to do, then, (4) give details on how it has been criticised. Moreover, this will aid the unacquainted reader to understand the curious Central European character of this story: it is the party’s attitude to the Law and Order aspect (3.4), that has resulted in criticism of their approach to the Hungarian Roma minority (4.1), to which it may be argued that the Hungarian Guard is a response (4.2), which has prompted the most vocal accusations of Fascism (4.3), to which have been added the specific allegations of Anti-Semitism levelled against Jobbik. (As has been mentioned here before, sadly opinion polls have shown that Anti-Semitism in Hungary exists throughout the political parties there.)

So, if you have ANY resources, references, videos or additional subjects to suggest for inclusion; or feel that the above layout misses anything out and is worthy of criticism, please feel free to include them or point it out, below the fold.
Tedhovis (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision Progress

(0) Lead

In line with this revision project, over the weekend updated the lead with additional references and more detailed information concerning the party. Including their response to the cited allegations (to maintain NPOV) which previously did not exist; which meant a non-impartial tone, “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.” (NPOV 2.6) And added information regarding the potential Irredentism stance which poses the greatest and most significant geo-political threat; in addition to locating the party’s development within the contemporary realities of Hungarian politics, and the stated reason for their foundation. In addition balanced out one of the anti-Semitism allegations. The previous version falsely gave the impression of this allegation being one-sided; as if there was only one version of events. The 20+ references adequately assert otherwise to provide “conflicting verifiable perspectives” (NPOV 1.1) Definite authorship has never been verified etc. Again adding balance to ensure NPOV. All edits meet Wikipedia’s three core content policies. Please discuss...
Tedhovis (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Independent review from NPOVN

I came from WP:NPOVN about this article. I only worked on the lead. There are still major problems.

A lot of overly emotive words -- especially adjectives and adverbs -- were being used when more neutral words could have taken their place. In some cases the adjectives were totally superfluous. In other cases, there word choices looked very awkward and overly precise -- not in line with the sources. I tried to mitigate that a bit. It makes the article look bad when such wording is included.

Secondly, there was some additional commentary in the reference regarding Hungarians outside of Hungary. Please try to avoid this.

Thirdly, the lead was WAY too long. A person coming to this article, like myself, knowing absolutely nothing about this political party wants a summary per WP:LEAD. The stuff about the history of the founding of the party was removed to that section.

If you have any questions about what I did, ask me concisely and directly on my talk page. I will not be monitoring here.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your objectivity review! This is precisely what this article needs. I have taken the liberty of moving your comment here to the Lead section (as this is the paragraph it concerns). I am very conscious of the need of maintaining NPOV and continuing in the accepted wikipedia format and welcome any constructive format advice, suggestion or editting; from anyone with no vested interests in this matter.

Please feel free to return as often as you like. In fact, I will now comment on your talk page, in addition to requesting the periodic review of the NPOV Noticeboard to keep an eye on my efforts to update this article with relevant sources while maintaining impartiality.

Tedhovis (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To address ScienceApologist's points one by one:

1. Emotive words and adjectives. As a relative newcomer to wikipedia editing, I have just clued myself up on the use of excessively emotive adjectives. I shall not make this mistake again. Sorry.

2. Regarding the "additional commentary in the reference regarding Hungarians outside" I did not make these. They were retained as part of my commitent: "I will NOT remove any existing remark or references; merely re-locate them to a more systematic place," as expressed above.

3. The lead being too long because the two sentence who, what, how and why of the party's foundation being more suited to the History heading. Granted.

One objection to his revision

from: Jobbik has been accused both by its socialist national opponents, and elements in the Western mainstream media, of being a Fascist party and is often labelled as anti-Semitic.

to: Jobbik has been accused both by its political opponents and some press outlets of being a fascist party and anti-Semitic.

I would argue that at least the "Western" word be retained.

Why? Attempts to say that the "the mainstream sources are overwhelmingly critical" are simply untrue. Two facts should be noted here. First, that within Hungary all the terrestrial TV channels are either state monitored or run. The same goes for the newspapers. These are not sympathetic to Jobbik at all. Perhaps people are aware of the recent attempts to hold a Neo-Nazi rally in Budapest on the anniversary of Rudolf Hess' death? How was this possible in a modern European state? Because second, Hungary has one of the most stringent consitutional protections of freedom of speech in the EU. (attempts are being made to change this)

Nevertheless, despite these two crucial facts: please feel free to look. Look as hard and as long as you like, you will not find one Hungarian (be it native language or the highly respected English language Hungarian news sources I have cited at length) news outlet that has used either of these labels as a descriptive term. This language has been exclusively confined to the Western press. (The UK; a pair of articles in the US, Canadian and German media respectively; and a handful of Israeli sources.)

The fact that the main right-wing party has considered possibly entering into a coalition with Jobbik is a matter of historical record. These labels were used once by a now minority (2.16%) socialist political party, the SZDSZ, in an attempt to survive. This was immediatly subject to a libel prosectuion, as has also been cited in the references. (Hence the original use of "socialist" national opponents - but I am happy to let this slide.)

Tedhovis (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since all of the references to this particular point are from non-Hungarian sources, I'm willing to go with an additional "Western" adjective here. However, if anyone locates a Hungarian press source, I would ask that the adjective "Western" be removed immediately. Fair? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely fair! I am confident no such sources will be located. That's kind of the point. Such statements made in Hungary would result in a libel prosecution. But I agree totally that the door should be left open just in case. Personally, I am more than happy to consider the Lead issue resolved, for the moment at least. I personally shall not be making any further changes to it. I'd now much rather be concentrating my research and writing efforts on the new proposed First Heading. Which as self-defining, is much less likely to be controversial. And hopefully we can finally see more informative info here which will allow people to actually understand and make up their own minds about this party's growth and appeal. When this is done I'll take the liberty of informing you. Thanks again. Tedhovis (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved?

I hope we can all respect and acknowledge ScienceApologist's input. He is an NPOV editor with a considerable reputation. I therefore would request that no further alterations be made to the Lead for some time; and we consider the matter, for the moment, resolved. Tedhovis (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian minorities

The number of ethnic Hungarians of nationality different than Hungarian is irrelevant to the topic itself and should be deleted from the lead. The article is about a party, a short note that it supports the case of autonomy is enough. No agenda pushing, it simply isn't necessary there. Feel free to mention it in the article  wlad 17:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedhovis (talk • contribs)

Thank you for finally coming to the talk page. Please consult the Revision proposal above and you will see there is a projected section on Hungarian Minorities. You frequent warnings were due to your continual changing of the lead without bothering to come here. Despite repeated requests and warnings to do so. This is so that anything controversial can be subject to everyone's scrutiny. Particularly edits which are consistent removals as yours have a tendency to be. Even now you just say "irrelevant" and leave that one word as your justification.
The relevance of the inclusion of this material, as I suspect you well know, given your repeated edit history on Slovakian issues. Is because of the geo-political threat this party so considered to pose by some. This is why it merits such a detailed and informed article. There are many populist-right parties in Europe today. But none, apart from Jobbik, look electorally capable of causing crossborder trouble. It is this geo-political relevance[7][8][9] that merits its inclusion in the lead: given that it will be one of the main reasons people will be coming to the article! Tedhovis (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead still has some problems with NPOV, namely:

campaign - a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose [10].

It is very, very disputable, whether the territorial autonomy movements in the neighbouring countries really could be described as campaigns. In Slovakia, there is only one tiny movement demanding it. Even MKP's (largest Hungarian-minority party in Slovakia) ideologue Duray has refused to pursue it and demands personal autonomy only [11].

also significant: of a noticeably or measurably large amount [12] - large is inherently an opinion, moreover, i would not call ~1/10 a large amount.

Current wording:

As a result Jobbik is the only major Hungarian party dedicated to supporting the cause of the significant (a quarter of Hungarians live outside Hungary[27]) Hungarian minorities that exist external to the nation's territory in countries bordering Hungary[28] in their campaigns to achieve self-determination and autonomy.[29]

this sentence is awfully long and has the previously mentioned problem with NPOV. Proposed wording:

As a result Jobbik is the only major Hungarian party supporting the case of self-determination and autonomy [27] for the Hungarian minorities in the countries bordering Hungary[28], which combined equal to a third of the Hungarian population[29]

Please note, that no information or references are deleted, it is merely a simple copyedit which normally would not be necessary to discuss extensively.

I have moved your comment to the relevant section here.

1st: "Significant." You are mistaken, please read the quotation from Inder Singh, Anita (2000). Democracy, ethnic diversity, and security in post-communist Europe @ reference 27 carefully. It reads, "[including the nations of the former Soviet Union] Magyar and Russian minorities are the largest minority groups in Europe, about one-tenth of all Russians and a quarter of Magyars live outside Russia and Hungary respectively." When you say 1/10th you are speaking of the Russians, Inder Singh's research shows 1 in 4 Hungarians. A quarter. A significant proportion. Which is used in the original text.

2nd: "Campaign." You are using the 2nd definition of the word from dictionary.com, the commerical one. Not the 3rd, political meaning of the word. Though I will happily bow to you on the issue of Slovakia (no-one is talking about Slovakia), there is ample evidence for the existence of political campaigns about both the Serbian Magyar minority and the Romanian one. And hence the justified use of the word "campaign" in its political meaning: as demonstrated by the sources; and given more than one country, the plural: so, campaigns.

There is therfore no compelling reason to change the senetence as it now stands. The fact that there may or may not only be a "tiny" movement as you put it in Slovakia, is neither here nor there. As I have repeatedly said, it is not Slovakia that is being discussed but the broad region-wide geo-political realities; you yourself have been critical of being too specific in the Lead. Please also rememebr to sign your comments. Best. Tedhovis (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) History and Development - COMPLETED

(1.1) Foundation

Completed three referenced paragraphs detailing the party's foundation, origins and first significant actions.Tedhovis (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(1.2) Alliances

Completed and referenced details of Jobbik-MIÉP alliance, significant involvement of FKgP and subsequent electoral marginalization. Tedhovis (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(1.3) October 2006

Completed this significant section with images and a great many supporting refrences of potentially controversial areas. These events are key to understanding this party's growth. However, text now getting a little long. Will contemplate a serious edit and paring down of extraneous facts, before completing Section 1: History and Development. Tedhovis (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(1.4) Growth and Electoral Success

Completed detailed and referenced chronology from 2006-to present day. Including grassroots appeal, reasons for consolidation, approach to media exclusion and reaction to election success. Tedhovis (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(2) Issues and Ideology

(2.1) Linguistic meaning

Completed three paragraphs providing lingustic information on the meaning of three Hungarian pieces of data. The party's name, their greeting and their 2009 electoral slogan. Gave references and indicated points of debate where relevant.Tedhovis (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(2.2) Radical nationalism

Completed text which is essentially a translation and summary of the most salient points from the Hungarian wikipedia article on Hungarian radical nationalism. Including scholarly references from the field of comparative politics; in addition to primary and secondary source material by and about the party itself. Tedhovis (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(2.3) The "Establishment"

STATUS: In Progress...

(2.4) Cultural Conservatism

STATUS: In Progress...

(3) Policy Position

STATUS: In Progress...

(3.1) The European Union

STATUS: In Progress...

(3.2) The Economy

STATUS: In Progress...

(3.3) Hungarian Minorities

STATUS: Formatting references

(3.4) Law and Order

STATUS: In Progress...

(4) Controversy

(4.4) Charges of Anti-Semitism

RE: Deliberate omission of Morvai's marital status by news media accusing her, or attempting to imply, anti-Semitism.

The relevance is self-evident here. If we mention the accusation which came from the disputed forum post, it is only right and proper that the contrary position be made too, agreed?

Personally, I think neither party comes out of this particularly smelling of roses. Morvai should have ditched her snooty attitude that answering such an allegation was beneath her, because she wouldn't dignify it with an answer. At the same time a lot of news media (some quite lofty) made great capital over this supposed potty-mouth remark which the 'Central European anti-Semite politician' would not deny. (Knowing full well that if they told their readers she had three children by a Jew, it would underminde the coherence of their oh-so-juicy story just a tiny little bit.) Tedhovis (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I took out the passage that attempts to demonstrate an omission of facts by citing a bunch of sources that omit those facts--specifically--that sources critical of the alleged comments omitted the facts regarding marriage and children. Trying to present these sources' omission as an argument itself is violates WP:OR. --198.169.65.1 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Full protection

I have full-protected this page for one day so this latest dispute can be resolved here. Blueboy96 18:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The right move. Thanks. Tedhovis (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Dispute October 2009

This article is not a neutral article at all. It presents, basically, a right-wing interpretation of recent history, standard Jobbik apologia of criticism on it and its leaders. This cannot be amended by changing one or two sentences. The author(s) seemingly try to circumvent Wikipedia's NPOV rules by presenting their own opinion as those of others. Another trick is to present a ridiculous amount of annotation; however this annotation is selective, one sided and often plain wrong. Criticism of the government is presented unchecked; criticism on Jobbik is debunked. Some examples:

- calling the 2006 elections "stolen" This is only the interpretation in the Fidesz/right wing camp. It is not shared by other observers, who think MSzP and SzDSz simply democratically won parliamentary elections. To outside observers what happened is that Fidesz was totally shocked by the defeat, it and its supporters simply could not believe that so many people would vote for the detested MSzP, therefore, the elections must have been "stolen". Outside of the national camp, there were a surprisingly high number of people justifying Gyurcsany's speech.

- comparing the 2006 to the 1948 (sic, should be 1947) elections. The authors attribute this opinion to the crowd on Kossuth ter. However, it does not appear in any of the three sources they have cited. Obviously not, as there were no elections in 1948...Therefore, it looks like the authors have dressed up their own views as those of someone else.

- Gyurcsany calling the demonstrators "anti-democratic". This is presented as some kind of pidgeon-holing of the protesters. But in any democracy elected governments do not usually give in to calls from the street, and it would not be considered democratic to hold. So it is not so strange to call the demonstrators' demands anti-democratic. That Gyurcsany might have served his party better by leaving, is a different story...

- The piece emphasises police brutality but glosses over the violence of protestors, who even captured a tank at one stage and barricaded a bridge accross the Danube. Also in the run up to the october some protests were violent without police provocation, such as the attack on the TV building in September 2006..

- the equation of 2006 and 1956. This is a typical Jobbik/nationalist point of view, who like to see themselves as heroes similar to the ones who fought the Russians in 1956, and the MSZP every bit as evil as the brutal dictatorship that ruled the country at the time. However, it is not a view shared generally outside nationalist groups. Typically, the authors present a right wing Fidesz MEP (George Schopflin) as source for this 'fact'.

-attitude towards controversy. The authors are not interested in presenting a realistic picture of critics of Jobbik, but are more interested in debunking criticism. They give no less than 10 footnotes of articles that do NOT mention that Morvai Krisztina has a Jewish husband, in order to prove that the charge of her anti-Semitism is nonsense, and teh international press mendacious. Indeed, in the discussion page on 4.4 one of the editors ridicules the 'capital' that newspapers made with this 'oh so juicy story', hardly a neutral POV. The question of her husband is hardly relevant: anti-Semitism is not rational. There are famous Jews that were known for anti-Semitismn (such as Hungarian dictator Matyas Rakosi). Also, the authors present no proof that this omission is deliberate. It is not natural for a journalist to check who a politician has married before they write something. Hungarian gossip magazines write that the pair have an estranged marriage; according to the logic of the authors, that could then explain Morvai's alleged anti-Semitism.

language used The language is very POV. The MSZP -SZDSZ government is referred to as "the regime", a term used in English only for dictatorships. Such pejoratives are not used when describing Jobbik.

It would take a lot of time to repair these pieces; until this is done the NPOV flag should be up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.182.99 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

89.133.182.99 makes some excellent points here... I do not want to monopolise the article, so would appreciate it if someone might take him/her up on their most glaring gaffes. Tedhovis (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is written in a biased, pro-left tone and should be re-written at least partially. Nearly every sentence in this article is about different people (indifferent how notable they are) accusing them to be nazis. What do you want this article to look like? Is it not enough? Do you wish to see nazinazinazinazinazinazi all over it? That is what you consider as an encyclopedic and balanced article?? --91.8.208.190 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The first IP's assessment dovetails substantially with my own. The second IP has broadly asserted the contrary but provided no evidence. EvanHarper (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is pure pro-Jobbik propaganda. To cite just one thing, it wastes a lot of space on claims of Jobbik being fascist and antisemitic, and even more to party denials, yet makes almost no mention of Jobbik's massively racist rhetoric, which is their main tenet, much more important than their antisemitism. Gipsy crime in this sense is used to refer to criminal acts typically committed by members of the Romani community, which is usually seen to be caused by prevalence of poor economic status among that group. - this is the interpretation of the liberal left (of course they don't use the expression "gypsy crime"), which Jobbik vehemently rejects, asserting instead that the criminal tendency of the Roma people is "culturally inherited". Their vice president caused a lot of controversy in 2007 by even saying that it is partially genetically determined due to incest (A cigányságnak vérfertőzés útján degenerálódó, ősközösségi szintű szubkultúrában élő rétege termeli ki magából a cigánybűnözés egy részét, amelyben - a vérfertőzésből származó, majd a bűn útjára lépő utódok esetében - a genetika is szerepet játszhat. - gypsy crime is in part produced by the social strata of gypsies who live in stone-age subcultures which degenerate through incest, where - in the case of offspring who originate from incest and then take the path of crime - genetics can also play a role.) He was removed from his position a year later after claiming that gypsy crime is the weapon of Zionism which is used with the intention of subjugating Hungary to Jewish rule. The article also makes no mention of the Hungarian supreme court dissolving the Hungarian Guard for racist instigation (which the Guard refused to obey). --Tgr (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is complete pov by wikipedia editorial assessment. 1. wikipedia cant be used to cite itself, and 2. "is sematically correct" per an editor who speaks Hungarian and English is not authoritative. I have thus removed that from the infobox.

Furthermore you cant quote "antisemitism.org.il" as an authoritice npov source on antisemitism. WP:COI? i think so.Lihaas (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Political position

In the infobox the "Political position"-section is meant to only contain a classification on the "left-right" scale. However, in this infobox, "nationalist" is put in, which have no relevance whatsoever with political position based on the right-left scale. Such identifications is meant for the "Ideology"-section, where it already is btw. I tried to edit this, but the edit was reverted[13], saying "So your POV would have us believe. Jobbik denies the validity of this simplified axis, as indeed does the wiki article "political spectrum."" This of course shows that the whole thing is based on a misunderstanding, because it has no relevance to "POV" in any way. (Regardless, I have no POV against Jobbik, I just tried correcting the article.) -GabaG (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "Political position" is necessarily a simple "far right, right-wing, center-right, center..." scale. It's appropriate to describe their main ideological points, such as radical nationalism. However, just like everything else in this article, the "Political position" section is infested with Party apologetics, to the point of including a footnote that reads "It should be noted that the party's ideology actively and peristently rejects this classification." No, it shouldn't be noted, thank you very much. EvanHarper (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen anything else than a left-right classification on the political position-section before. If you have seen it please show me. -GabaG (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem lies in two things. First is that Jobbik thinks this classification ludicrous. They don't consider a classification which is based on how people sat in the 18th century French parliament is relevant to describing the politics of today. Furthermore they think that this classification is, curiosly, used predominantly by people from whom you never hear the words "far-Left." Because they are really just Leftists using this term to smear. The classification which is appropriate, they think, is one that doesn't put Left on one side and Right on the other, but Nationalist on one side and Globalist on the other. If anyone had actually bothered to read the section on ideology, they would understand this. Consequently, when they speak they describe BOTH the Left AND the Right as "others" to their position. For example Krisztina Morvai here@0:55.

So Second, how is one to reach a valid classification? Well you judge substance and not rhetoric. Look at their policies, on by one, and you will see a pretty even split. In Economics, they favour the raising of taxes on multinationals (a policy of the Left) but also simplifying the tax system for SMEs (a policy of the Right), in social provision they believe in radical welfare reform (of the Right) but increasing the take up of state pensions (of the Left), they want to extend citizenship to people overseas due to Hungarian origin (of the Right), but oppose any opening up of arable lad purchase to EU partners - due for 2011 (of the Left), toughening of prisons (Right) but an intransigent NO to changing Hungary's generous maternity provision (Left). And so on and so on. These policy choices are NOT considered valid by them because they originate in either the Right or the Left. They're considered valid because Jobbik believes them to benefit the Nation. They are a Nationalist party. The Left-Right axis just doesn't fit them.

This is unsurprising.

"In the infobox the "Political position"-section is meant to only contain a classification on the "left-right" scale." you say GabaG?

Well no it isn't actually. And by the way you say nothing to support your contention other than assert. Take the time as I did to click on the actual term "Political position" that is in the article's infobox directly infront of the word "Nationalist"; and is the subject of our discussion. You are NOT taken to the article entitled "Left-right politics", are you? No Sir. You are taken to the one called "Political spectrum" which states in its lead "researchers have frequently noted that a single left-right axis is insufficient in describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes." And then the article goes on to deliver a series of two dimensional matrices, not one dimensional axes.

In conclusion, those who are advocating just left or right are therefore being disingenuous. Nationalism fits Jobbik like a glove precisely because this is exactly what they are. And any attempt at classification that doesn't start at this point merely confuses the issue or misleads. Moreover, it is perfectly clear that what the infobox requires is a position in a broader political spectrum and not a narrow axis. So why would people be arguing for less clarity and not more? 93.97.53.250 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said they aren't nationalist, the thing is however that by definition, nationalist = far-right. "Far-right" also does almost always incorporate interventionist, or "leftist", economic policies, this is part of the normal definition (there are no "far-right" free market capitalists are there?). And of course the party does not want to describe itself at far-right, neither would a communist party describe itself as far-left. This is however not something to discuss. But, I do think the best idea would be to just remove the "Political position"-section alltogether, because as it is now it gives no meaning whatsoever anyways. "Nationalist" is regardless an alien object of that section which is not supposed to be there. -GabaG (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed nationalist, which has little to do with the political spectrum, and is already listed under ideology. The problem with left/right...

Please take great care! Several edits have had to revised because of this motive. Nationalism is cited several times in the wikipedia article Political Spectrum. NOTE the classification is not "Political axis" 2-dimensional left/right, but Politcal Spectrum.93.97.53.250 (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

...is that the meaning changes from country to country; in Hungary it is mostly based on the interpretation of XX. century history, with the left being antifascist, and the right being anticommunist. In that sense, Jobbik is certainly far-right, but there is no way to express that specific meaning in an infobox. Maybe authoritarian (or the more neutral-sounding ideologically rigid) could be written instead? Most two-axis spectra use that or something very similar as the societal axis, and the position of Jobbik is clear in that regard. --Tgr (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

telegraph.co.uk article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/7549950/Rise-of-Hungarys-far-Right-Jobbik-party-stirs-disturbing-echoes-of-the-1940s.html

-- nyenyec ☎ 07:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on political position immediately above that took place 4-6 months ago on this party's political position. There were just as many articles claiming then that Jobbik were far-right, this does not make them correct. Wikipedia is not just a repository for newspaper opinion pieces. The discussion concluded that the party should remain classified as "Nationalist" or have the "Political Position" label removed, please feel free to contribute it.93.97.53.250 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideology

I rewrote the ideology part of the infobox:

• removed national conservatism, which contradicts radical nationalism, and Jobbik is radical rather than conservative.

Jobbik succesively refers to themselves as a Christian conservative nationalist party. The "radical element" is a philosophy intended to deal with Hungary problems now. Read the Vona piece "What we mean by Radicalism."93.97.53.250 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• removed radical nationalism, which is pretty much a neologism invented by Jobbik and its precursors, and as such, not very informative in an infobox; nationalism and political radicalism are adequate to describe that position.

radical nationalism is an entire movement in Hungary and to suggest it was invented by Jobbik is farcical. Jobbik is the political party. Radical nationalism is the whole kit and kaboodle of the Hungarian Guard, the NVA, Budaházy on the one hand all the way to modern Nationalist musicians in Hungary like Fankadeli and Kárpátia.93.97.53.250 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• removed self-determination: first, it is not an ideology but a human right, second, Jobbik is in favor of Hungarian self-determination and not self-determination in general (you don't see them raising their voice for the rights of Hungarian slovaks or gypsies, for example), which is a nationalist tenet, and that ideology is already mentioned.

Self-determination may be a right, but it is not a right recognized by governments with respect to Magyar communities in Transylvannia or Slovakia. Jobbik intends giving these peopl eHungarian citizenship and the vote. This is massively significant as it could lead to cross border conflict.93.97.53.250 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• added populism, which is defined as a type of political-social thought which juxtaposes "the people" against "the elites", and urges social and political system changes.

The issue of populism is dealt with in the body of the article and given marginal importance.93.97.53.250 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still unsure about christian democratic; the tenets listed at Christian democracy are very general and true to every right-wing Hungarian party (except for being liberal, which Jobbik is very decidedly not). --Tgr (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please think VERY carefully in future, before you consider radically (pardon the pun) altering a very helful and informative infobox that has stood the test of time.93.97.53.250 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the revanchism/irridentism that were included in the footnotes before the edit? Are those not political positions? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one would certainly question any talk of revanchism, though there has been irredentist rhetoric in some parts of Hungarian radical nationalism, this is not reflected by Jobbik policy, certainly not in their manifesto. There it is all self-determination with the hope of autonomy, and if Hungarians find themselves victims of persecution then a protective power status which mirrors Austria's influence in the South Tyrol region of Italy, see the Jobbik manifesto (English language) page 15-16.93.97.53.250 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Article name: suggest move to Jobbik

In the recent English-language coverage of the Hungarian elections, the party was referred to almost exclusively as Jobbik, and this is the name used in the majority of sources and external links used in the article. Per WP:AT we should be using the common-name if it is unambiguous, as it is in this case, so I suggest that we move the page. Knepflerle (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This Article Is a Mess

This article contains a great deal of material that is not about the Jobbik party but rather about the history of Hungary. That material should be included through hypertext links. For instance, there is no need to rewrite the history of the October 2006 protests. Just mention them in the appropriate place and insert a link to the article on that topic. The same should be done with respect to the 2006 elections, the partition of the Kingdom of Hungary, etc.

Disagree. The most abiding question everyone is asking is how come a party which scored maybe 2% a year and a half ago, almost became the opposition in Hungary on Sunday. This history is crucial if an answer to that question is to be provided. And October 2006 is instrumental in understanding that. This is not my opinion, but that of Dr Ervin Csizmadia head of the political analysis section of the Hungarian Academy. See Analysts say events of 2006 key to rise of Hungarian right.93.97.53.250 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia already has articles on, for instance, the 2006 protests in Hungary. One of the benefits of a hypertext encyclopedia is that people can follow links to learn more about contexts that may interest them. I'm not aware of any other 7-year-old political party that has a Wikipedia article as long as this one, and the amount of material quoted in the footnotes is also excessive; again, people can follow the links if they want to read the relevant quotations.

It is precisely the point when none of these articles indicate how these events led directly to a political resurgence of Hungarian nationalism. Which the text in this article does, not only rather well, but with rather impecable referencing too. 93.97.53.250 (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You can edit those articles just as easily as you can edit this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But why on earth would you want to when it is THIS article that is about Jobbik? And those events effected that party's fortunes in these ways. I cannot understand why anyone might have a motive for wanting to remove the reasons for this party's success and popularity. It seems to me very strange that someone would wish to do so. The presence of this text does a lot more good than it does harm. Seems a lot more sensible to add to those articles than to take away from this one. 93.97.53.250 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Movement for a Better Hungary → Jobbik — The political party is much better known in the English world under its Hungarian acronym "Jobbik", rather than the translation "Movement for a Better Hungary". All the recent coverage of this party in the English press has used Jobbik (Times, BBC, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, Philadelphia Inquirer, Guardian). 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support given the evidence, what I wrote in the section before last, and WP:COMMONNAME. Knepflerle (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Knepflerle makes a valid point, but such a renaming would go against established practise regarding naming of Hungarian political parties on Wikipedia. Fidesz for example, is not titled "Fidesz" but Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union, similarly the MSZP is not titled "MSZP" but Hungarian Socialist Party, and LMP is not titles "LMP" but rather Politics Can Be Different. Putting Jobbik in a search immediately re-directs here. So if a change must be made, why not change it to what they actually call themselves, even if it is a bit of a mouthfull: "Jobbik, the Movement for a Better Hungary"? 93.97.53.250 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For other countries, we tend to use a translation for some political parties that are beth known by an English name, and keep the original name for other parties. See, in Israel, Israeli Labor Party versus Kadima and Likud; in Italy, The People of Freedom versus Lega Nord. Wikipedia is not perscriptive, so we should follow what's being used in the media, not invent usage for the sake of consistancy. I also think Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union should be moved to "Fidesz" for the same reason. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Strikethrough applied to the above vote, as it was reversed by the user, see below. Andrewa (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. If other articles on Hungarian parties use their official names rather than their common names as the article names, then these other articles should be moved too. That's unless this is a documented exception to the article naming conventions, in which case please provide a link to this special naming convention. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support all what Andrewa said. -TheG (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I must confess I had not read the article naming conventions. Having done so I have now changed my opinion on this matter. If that's OK with you guys. 93.97.53.250 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem, there is an awful lot of policy out there to read! I've applied strikethrough to your previous vote, I hope you'll approve this change to your signed text which I don't do lightly but it makes the discussion a lot clearer and is a standard device for indicating a changed vote. Andrewa (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • No worries at all that's fine. 93.97.53.250 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I happen to be Hungarian but not in thousand years would have figured out that "Movement for a Better Hungary" meant Jobbik. Never heard that name, never heard anyone using it, or referring to it. Not even by themselves. --grin ✎ 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support The present title is an example of Use English gone mad! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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

It is as unbelievable as unacceptable

What exactly do you mean by saying that they are not self-characterised fascists,so we should not add the characterisation fascism in the template? I thought wikipedia was a free encyclopedia!Everybody is calling them fascists, do they have to accept ito? Why is it acceptable on the collaborator of Jobbik,BNP to say "Fascism" in the ideology section and not on Jobbik's?Because they simple deny it? Every murderer refuses the allegations that his is a murder.Why?So no to be convicted.Of course Jobbik doesn't want to be called fascist,it would lose tons of votes. What do you call a right-wing,anti-semitic,anti-minority party taht wants limitation of personal freedom for the shake of public order,is vividly anti-communist,and has asked repetedly for the emprisonment of those who strike,and doesn't renounce the World War II collaboration of Hungary with Nazi Germany,if not fascist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.66.59 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• It's neither unbeliveable nor unacceptable, they are called Wikipedia policies. Please read the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:UNRELIABLE, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
• You wrote the following:
• "What exactly do you mean by saying that they are not self-characterised fascists": They don't call themselves fascists. Read their website (use Google Translate or Yahoo! Babel Fish to translate, if you cannot understand Hungarian)
• "I thought wikipedia was a free encyclopedia": Wikipedia is free as in a freedom, but not a place where you are allowed to freely insult anything or anybody with your opinion. Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions.
• "verybody is calling them fascists, do they have to accept ito": because no. First, nobody, just some certain political and religious parties calling them fascists. I believe, that you must be a member of either. Second, just because people say so, it doesn't mean, that it's true, and in this cases, it's clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• "Why is it acceptable on the collaborator of Jobbik,BNP to say "Fascism" in the ideology section and not on Jobbik's Because they simple deny it?": according to this thought line, if I have a friend, who is a big Britney Spears fan, I must be one, too. This is obviously false, so is your argument.
• "Of course Jobbik doesn't want to be called fascist,it would lose tons of votes.": implying that Jobbik voters do care about stuff like that. They don't, and they were called much worse in the recent campaign.
• "What do you call a right-wing,anti-semitic,anti-minority party taht wants limitation of personal freedom for the shake of public order,is vividly anti-communist,and has asked repetedly for the emprisonment of those who strike,and doesn't renounce the World War II collaboration of Hungary with Nazi Germany,if not fascist?"
  • 1. jobbik is right-wing, yes. Right-wing =/= fascist
  • 2. Jobbik isn't anti-semitic. Just because you don't like Jew people and Israel, it does not make your the enemy of the world. Deal with it.
  • 3. Jobbik isn't anti minority. They are against crime, even if the major part of the crimes is made by minorities, like the Olaszliszka murder case.
  • 4. Jobbik doesn't want to limit your personal right, unless you are a good-for-nothing criminal, but those deserve nothing better. However, our current parlament wants, with making every media censorable by a central office.
  • 5. Jobbik is anti-communist, and THIS IS GOOD. Just because you love Stalin, it doesn't make others fascist.
  • 6. nd has asked repetedly for the emprisonment of those who strike,and doesn't renounce the World War II collaboration of Hungary with Nazi Germany I don't remember such thing, but I do remember about stuff, like getting years of prison if you dare to even think about not believing the holocaust...

Also, your sources:

• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6457752.ece It's a personal opinion the writer of the article, so it cannot be considered reliable, imo.
• http://www.imerisia.gr/article.asp?catid=12337&subid=2&pubid=26995159 Only called them new-fascists once, no further explanation or reasons. Not reliable. It said, that Gábor Vona wants to do something with the "roma problem". Protip: it's in the program of the new European Parlament, with Hungary, as it's president.
• http://www.tanea.gr/default.asp?pid=2&artid=4521181&ct=2 Doesn't even called the fascists nor left-right wing directly.
• http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.article&id=154924 Not a single mention of it.

You have to provide neutral and independent third party sources, and even with them, there is no reason to delete the whole first section. I suggest your to read the Wikipedia policies I've mentioned, and think twice, before posting

--drhlajos (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC) @ Drhlajos You are a fascist,the sources were by a 3rd party-neutral source-Unless you think Murdoch and Lambrakis are communists- and you erased them. A man like you shouldn't be able to edit a political article of such importance.Your arguments were lazy and arrogant,although i must say you don't deserve even yout own arrogance.You are not neutral either,you are clearly an anticommunist who writes about a fascist party. Also Ta Nea and Eleftherotypia mentions them as fascists together with all the other European fascist parties. LEARN TO READ.You are even a Hollocaust denial,and you write about an antisemetic party. This is unacceptable,wikipedia has gone out of hand,next thing go and edit Hitler's article as a humanist. And yes it's anti-minority,REMEMBER the final solution ad. I didn't say right-wing equals fascist,I said to considerate all the following. AND YES,a party cares if it loses tons of votes.If it was officially described as fascist it would get even 3% now it tries to seem as a simply radical nationalist party. And about the BNP.Your example was TERRIBLE.You can have thousands of people you admire. You can have only one policy.And the European parties agree on certain things when they submit for a team. BNP has denounced too,that it is fascist but the characterisation "Fascism" lies on their template. You are despicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus Marat (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. They undermine your point, and they're unlikely to win over the person that you're insulting.

Please try to stick to content and sources. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The following sentence from the lead relies principally on Jobbik's own presentation of their foreign policy.

"As a result, Jobbik dedicates itself to supporting the cause of the significant (a quarter of Hungarians live outside Hungary[1]) Hungarian minorities that exist external to the nation's territory in countries bordering Hungary[2] in their campaigns[citation needed] to achieve self-determination and autonomy.[3]"

The third-party citations only prove that there are Hungarian minorities in the neighboring countries, but they do not say anything about Jobbik's policy.

I suggest to exclude this sentence from the lead and to include somewhere further back. I also cannot see why this assertion is essential for the understanding of Jobbik so that it has to be in the lead section. What do you think? -- RJFF (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there are no objections against my proposition - so I will act. Thank you -- RJFF (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Jobbik as anti-Roma party

An user is attempting to remove Category:Antiziganism in Hungary from the article about the Hungarian political party named Jobbik, on the basis that the provided sources are political opinions by left-wing or Jewish websites and non facts.. The referred texts are sources 14-17. Can other editors please present your opinion on this? Newnou (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, I feel the Guardian source itself is good enough to keep the category. The others are questionable, but I feel the Guardian, as a Newspaper on the other side of the world, is reliable enough a source to keep the category on the page. Also, I am not sure about the statement of the remover - I will get full protection again on this page if it is needed. Mdann52 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Do you also consider the author Satvinder S. Juss (source 14) as being questionable? Newnou (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that article was written by Juss himself. It was written by some contributor, who I can't identify from Google Books, but I do see that the source he used for the "anti-Roma" claim was a newspaper article. I don't think the source is an expert on Hungary. Shii (tock) 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What kind of sources do you recommend to look for? Hungarian ones? Can't they be accused to be biased? Newnou (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there political scientists who specialize in Hungary? That would be better than a stray mention. Shii (tock) 13:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of The Budapest Times: [14] ?

That article seems completely worthy and reliable but it's too brief. That Jobbik is "rabidly anti-Roma" is apparently obvious to the editors. This isn't good enough for Wikipedia to agree rather than simply calling it a widespread view. Shii (tock) 13:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is actually more questionable because it's on the other side of the world. WP:RSN discussions usually show that faraway sources have a tendency to distort. Shii (tock) 12:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On the other side of the world? What do you mean? Ian Traynor is the Guardian's European editor who wrote the article annd he is based in Brussels [15]. Brussels is the facto capital of the European Union, where Hungary belongs Newnou (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is only one of the many press. I repeat these sources are political opinions and do not meet the requirement of NPOV. Furthermore I would add that Newnou (a sockpuppet of banned user named Iaaasi) used personal attack against me when he said "I assume that you are a Jobbik voter.". This is not an argument to defend his own position. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, then what source is competent in this issue by your opinion? Newnou (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The article also says that "different press outlets and its political opponents as fascist... anti-Roma...". So it is not a general opinion, and until Jobbik's antiziganism can not be verified with facts, these press essays pure assumptions and politically motivated writings. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is not a general opinion, can you name an independent source which denies these accusations? Newnou (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not need to prove that Jobbik is not an anti-Roma party. Anyway a court held that "Jobbik is not a Nazi party." (see). So the above statements are still only political opinions, and it is also applied to the phrase of "antiziganism". --Norden1990 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection request....

There is a request at WP:RFPP concerning protection of this page; I would just like to advise everybody involved, that what you are doing here is called editwarring (which is a blockable behaviour), so consider yourself warned. Lectonar (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would advise to get a third opinion. Lectonar (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Right wing?

The program of the party claims that they seek o establish more strict regulation, more control over economy by the state, nationalization, etc... It's not right wing ideology. Jobbik is a nationalistic left wing party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.55.94 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you show me a proper right wing or left wing party in Hungary? :-) Fakirbakir (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not important. It should be comprehensive for a reader unfamiliar with Hungary. I suggest dropping right-/left- from Wikipedia altogether, since they have many meanings, some of which are, moreover, antonyms of each other. If they are left in the articles, however, I suggest they are used in relation to the economic system and attitude towards wealth inequality. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you find a better term to describe parties like Jobbik, Golden Dawn, the National Front, etc.? TFD (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seats in Parliament

Shouldn't this article mention the > 10% of seats Jobbik hold in Parliament? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leegee23 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jobbik's view on Islam

Considering the fact that the party is fascist, Neo-Nazi, racist, and anti-Roma, it's very likely that they're also anti-Muslims/Islam. Can anyone confirm that? Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say no they are not. Jobbik supports Palestinians and the creation of the independent Palestinian state. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Muslims represent 0.056% of Hungary's population, too less to represent a political stake. It is like asking if Jobbik happens to discriminate black people. 79.117.167.255 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Jobbik are somewhat unusual in the modern European far-right as they make no secret of respect for Islam, rooted in their Turanism. http://budapesttimes.hu/2014/02/22/jobbik-to-wilders-and-le-pen-liberalism-and-zionism-are-the-enemies-not-islam/ http://www.ibtimes.com/strange-bedfellows-hungarian-far-right-jobbik-party-embraces-muslim-nations-seeks-eurasian-ideal http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/11/111456/hungary-far-right-party-leader-says-islam-is-the-last-hope-of-humanity/ http://www.jobbik.com/vona_g%C3%A1bor_about_islam '''tAD''' (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs a big clean-up

Biased, weasel claims, not even close to the original Hungarian verified version — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentgates (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Be more clear, your post is too vague. 176.63.177.233 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian version of article

Someone should take care of Hungarian version of this article. It is missing key information and sourced information is routinely removed en masse by editors who openly state that this is their party in their profile. Zozs (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I absolutelly agree with you, the Hungarian version is beneath all criteria of Wikipedia and what is happening there is outrages.Tritomex (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Name, English phrase

I removed the {{citation needed}} tag from the last sentence of § Name. The paragraph reads

The Movement for a Better Hungary more commonly goes under its abbreviated name Jobbik (pronounced [ˈjobːik]), which is in fact a play on words. The word Jobb in Hungarian has two meanings, the adjective for "better" and the direction "right"; the comparative Jobbik therefore means both "the more preferable choice" and "more to the right". This is similar to the English phrase "right choice", which could mean both "a choice on the right side of the political spectrum" and "a correct choice".

Anyone who knows English (I'm a native speaker with a doctorate in linguistics) can confirm the two possible meanings of "right choice"; the political sense is something of a stretch, but we're talking about explanation of a pun here, not actual translation. See WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not important per se:

Citations are not an end in themselves. If there's a statement for which no source is cited, that's normally ok, as with the example on Wikipedia:No original research: "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for it exist. Likewise with very many unsourced statements, regardless of whether they could be deduced from sourced statements in the same article, we know the sources exist.

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Labeled/described

The term "labeled" in front of many WP:RS is highly tendentious and represent WP:OR as it is not used by sources cited. We do not take stands on reliable source we cite.--Tritomex (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of NPOV status.

I am seeing several red flags in this article indicating NPOV such as various labels by sources that would obviously be against the party's views (such as Israeli newpapers), and not enough balance. I dearly request an admin or someone of high merit please comb through this article for dead/biased links sources and ensure a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Also, although this may be a bit brunt, I notice many of the editors in the history seem to be an example of WP:BIAS; mainly non-Hungarians who hold views against Jobbik's.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090103035529/http://www.dissentmagazine.org:80/article/?article=1158 to http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1158
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522002526/http://tyglobalist.org:80/index.php/20090511205/Features/Homophobia-in-Hungary.html to http://tyglobalist.org/index.php/20090511205/Features/Homophobia-in-Hungary.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jobbik 2016

Gábor Vona is creating the Jobbik's new ideologies and leaves the radical ideology forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViceCity343 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Jobbik 2017

Jobbik has radically changed its policies and communication and clarified (or changed) its controversial points in the past few years. Updates I made concerning these changes were legitimate, since one cannot get to know the party from obsolete information from the pre-2010 period (as it was the case before the changes I made). All the updates and additions I put were based on citations, mostly from media outlets. I only cited the party's official communication where I wanted to show the party's views on their own policies since without the party's comments - let them be positive or negative - it is quiet hard to evaluate their policies. From the text it is clear, where the party's own points start and end. Unfortunately, some editors undid these updates, without paying attention to all the citations and openly using labeling and defending their openly one-sided views. This behavoiur is not in compliance with the principles of Wikipedia. I do not think that a Wikipedia side of a currently active political party should finish with 2010 or at some point 2012.

I suggest for the future to argue on possible modifications in the Talk section before just undoing each other's additions (especially those that are supported by citations from independent and well-known media outlets). Bidoistvan (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Why don't you start using edit summaries? And why don't you explain every one of your changes -- each of which removes something negative about Jobbik and replaces it with something that paints them in a flattering light. Please read WP:BRD -- you made some bold changes to the article, they've been reverted, and now it's time to discuss them. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I used edit summaries and I summarized why I added new paragraphs WITH citations mainly from independent media outlets. I have never added anything without a reason and proper citations, as you can see it on the page. We can discuss, you can add things, but simply delete the last 3-4 years from the history of a currently active party, without reasoning, just by subjective feelings (as you expressed in the edit sumary from your other profile), is not more than vandalism. Bidoistvan (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

I've raised the issue of suspicious editing activity recently on this and related articles at AN/I; the discussion can be found here. Mélencron (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jobbik. 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/20150530210838/http://budapesttimes.hu/2012/02/05/turanism-the-new-ideology-of-the-far-right/ to http://budapesttimes.hu/2012/02/05/turanism-the-new-ideology-of-the-far-right/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.budapesttimes.hu/content/view/12240/219/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504224749/http://alfahir.hu/nem_nevezhetik_szelsojobboldalinak_a_jobbikot_a_hirmusorok to http://alfahir.hu/nem_nevezhetik_szelsojobboldalinak_a_jobbikot_a_hirmusorok
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530210838/http://budapesttimes.hu/2012/02/05/turanism-the-new-ideology-of-the-far-right/ to http://budapesttimes.hu/2012/02/05/turanism-the-new-ideology-of-the-far-right/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722072058/http://www.naplo-online.hu/fooldal-foldalrovat_legfrissebb_hirek/20090524_erositeni_kell_nemzettudatot to http://www.naplo-online.hu/fooldal-foldalrovat_legfrissebb_hirek/20090524_erositeni_kell_nemzettudatot
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.budapesttimes.hu/content/view/12139/219/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.budapesttimes.hu/content/view/12155/159/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720171509/http://www.revacern.eu/exchange-programme/EP-paper%20szilagyi.pdf to http://www.revacern.eu/exchange-programme/EP-paper%20szilagyi.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130217205554/http://freehungary.hu/archives-new/1259-discovering-jewish-roots--former-anti-semitic-party-leader-meets-with-rabbi-koeves.html to http://freehungary.hu/archives-new/1259-discovering-jewish-roots--former-anti-semitic-party-leader-meets-with-rabbi-koeves.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nonsensical statements

Due to the disillusioning of young people because no-perspectives, decreasing living conditions and frustrating level of state corruption, popularity of Jobbik skyrocketed among younger generations.

How does the author know this? These claims must be proven. In addition, there are no decreasing living conditions in Hungaria, GDP per capita is currently increasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.232 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Black?

The official colors are listed as Red, white and green. Why are we using black, again? It doesn't seem neutral to me. I think we should switch it to the dark shade of green. --Aréat (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To avoid confusion with other current and former Hungarian parliamentary parties: MSZP (red), MDF (green) or LMP (light green). I do not understand the question of "neutrality", black just a color, just like the rest. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

But none use the distinctive darker shade #187429, and most are <1% very minors parties, while the MDF went extinct before Jobbik was created, so they're not on a page at the same time. If we want to make distinctive colors, it is logical to use either one of the three color used by the aprty instead of a different unused one, or change the colors of the benign parties, don't you think so? --Aréat (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use colors that aren't necessarily in official use by a party if they're commonly used to represent it (for example, in maps and charts), and as far as I can tell based on just maps based on seat projections and polls, black appears to be a plurality (though a muddy brown and green are also used). Mélencron (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, because some colour have a meaning. It's the same reason we don't use green and red on some referendum like the brexit one, otherwise it can be seen as the editor giving an opinion on which choice is right. Of course a politically engaged source will go with a brown or black color for a right wing party, using colors often associated with fascism in a political context, but it doesn't mean an encyclopedie should use it when there's an alternative.--Aréat (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jobbik. 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/20120722214040/http://www.politics.hu/20090804/jobbik-stages-demonstration-against-banks-foreign-speculative-capital-/ to http://www.politics.hu/20090804/jobbik-stages-demonstration-against-banks-foreign-speculative-capital-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204135254/http://www.politics.hu/20090714/police-investigate-new-magyar-garda-former-minister-mulls-banning-jobbik to http://www.politics.hu/20090714/police-investigate-new-magyar-garda-former-minister-mulls-banning-jobbik

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Far-right or right-wing party

Dear Wiki-Users,

I started this topic, because I've seen in the Page History, that there was a discussion about the actaul political position of the party. I think we should speak about it here and I hope we can find out how we can define Jobbik.

A few links that show, Jobbik is no more far-right party:

https://thehungaryjournal.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/fidesz-and-jobbik-switched-places/

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/wahlkampf-in-ungarn-zwischen-budapest-und-mekka-15424767.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-election/hungary-to-hold-election-on-april-8-pm-orbans-fidesz-ahead-in-polls-idUSKBN1F00YW?il=0

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/hungarian-political-foes-unite-against-government-attack-on-nationalists-1.3329144?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Jobbik defines itself so: "In 2013, we announced our programme to become a people’s party; a process which we have completed by now. Our goal was to rise above the fault lines characterizing the political left and right, thus committing to a 21st-century agenda of building bridges between the groups of the society. During this process Jobbik has grown from a national niche party into a national people’s party. Today, when we adopt this document, we believe and declare that Jobbik is not only mature enough to govern Hungary but it is the only force capable of leading the country successfully and honestly."

Jobbik speaks against the Chauvinism in the same document:

"The foundations of our identity lie in the Hungarian people’s soul and national consciousness. Instead of internationalism tending to either ignore or suppress national identities and 20th-century Chauvinism, we need a modern national identity which inspires rather than depresses, connects rather than divides Hungarian people, regardless which part of the Carpathian Basin or the world they may live in."

https://jobbik.com/manifesto_on_the_guidelines_for_a_future_jobbik_led_government

Kocka78 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Half of those links aren't reliable sources, and none of them say that Jobbik isn't a far-right party. Your argument might be more convincing if you were here to build an encyclopedia rather than white-wash Jobbik. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a reliable source (Reuters) where Jobbik is a "right-wing" Party. The New York Times took the article, too. Another source, where Jobbik is discribed as a right wing party: http://hamodia.com/2018/03/20/hungarian-opposition-negotiations-falter-boost-orban/ . So, we can say that there are sources who say that Jobbik is a right-wing party. Kocka78 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ultranationalism?

Is it still appropriate to describe this party as ultranationalist? The citation used is fairly old (2014). Many more recent sources just describe it as a right-wing or nationalist party. It definitely isn't in the same category as Golden Dawn or Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia.--Jay942942 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

First, 2014 is by no means "fairly old". Second, since when do sources come with expiration dates? Finally, "We're bad, but not as bad as [fill in the blank]" is never a good argument. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the party has been widely described as changing its ideology since then, using a source from before the change is definitely questionable.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's true that the party has changed a lot since 2014, as practically every reliable source discussing the party in the past year has affirmed. So while 2014 is recent, it's probably a good idea to change the party's infobox description to show that the party's majority (as shown in the party's leadership election this year) actually is quite moderate. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are two sources from this year that describe Jobbik as ultra-nationalist:

• "Far-right mayor hails success of Hungary-Serbia border fence", NBC News, 2 May 2018: "Toroczkai is also in the running to take over as leader of the ultra-nationalist Jobbik movement, which won 20 percent of the vote."
• "Hungary’s first black MP aims to 'destroy prejudice'", BBC News, 11 June 2018: "... the ultra-nationalist Jobbik came second with 26 seats."

So it's nonsense to say that the party is no longer described as ultra-nationalist. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Name

It seem to me that the English translation of Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom added something. Am just a bit confused, according to the limited knowledge I have on the Hungarian language, there isn't a comparative in the phrase "Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom". So, the word "better" comes from, like, nowhere. ----Sunzhai (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, there is a comparative (jó -> jobb(ik)). WolfmanFP (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gabor vona sympathizer.jpg
• Jobbik Kongress.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)