Talk:Order of Vitéz

Last Sane Edit

I'd like to suggest reversion back to the last edit before the 2016 U.S.election. Which would be here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Order_of_Vit%C3%A9z&oldid=746203589

The reason for this is the controversy surrounding a suspected member of the group http://www.newsweek.com/senators-question-trump-adviser-gorka-ties-nazi-linked-group-570453 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemikegoodmike (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What policy do you believe supports removing relevant, sourced content due to controversy? Dyrnych (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not nobility

The title vitéz is clearly not a noble title, but rather en par with the Knights Bachelor - entitled to sir. Members of the Order of Vitéz has not been seen as noble when made Knights of Malta. --Jonar242 (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be entirely missing the Nazi connotation of this award, which was created by Horthy, and was administered by his administration until the Nazis deposed him. Can someone source & add? --Thalia42 (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely incorrect!!!

Horthy protected the jewish ghetto in BP with 2 battalions when the Nazis rolled in!

Horthy died in Portugal, living in the house with one of the Jewish families he saved! Do much for being an anti semite! 216.193.139.91 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual to find this to be a "Nazi-linked" group?

We're currently citing the Foreign Affairs Manual, 9 F.A.M. § 302.7-4(B)(7)(j)(9), to link this group to Nazi Germany. I believe this is both an inappropriate use of a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY) as well as a misinterpretation. The cited section of the Manual doesn't explain its purpose, but, from § 1(A) and the I.N.A., I think it's clear it is the agency's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(E)(i), which excludes those who committed certain Nazi atrocities "during the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of, or in association with" Nazi-aligned governments. Therefore, claiming a present-day association between the Order of Vitéz and Nazis would be a misuse of the source. Crucially, a related section of the Manual lists, without qualification, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania as "[g]overnments [a]ligned with Nazi Germany." See 9 F.A.M. § 302.7-4(B)(5). Would it be fair to claim using this source, as we do for this organization, that these governments are aligned with Nazi Germany? Of course not! Rebbing 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is claiming a a present-day alignment between the Order, Hungary, Bulgaria, or Romania and Nazi Germany: Nazi Germany ended in 1945 (and the original Order was shut down in 1947). This is the section on the Order in WWII; I think that's clear as written. Would you like to propose some clarifying language?

I don't agree that citing FAM for present purposes is a primary source under WP:PRIMARY: it's the regulations derived from the investigations and conclusions of the State Department .Mikalra (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Regrettably, I don't think the extant sources would allow for a more nuanced statement as citing and explaining the I.N.A. context that this supports would be impermissible synthesis, and there don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources addressing the matter.

Also, FAM isn't a regulation; it's internal policy, and I don't agree that it counts as a secondary source in this context: the statement being supported is about State Department policy, and the source is the policy document. I stand by my view that using this document—something clearly not intended for public consumption—is inappropriate, but I'm not interested enough to take this to RS/N, so it appears we will agree to disagree. Best. Rebbing 23:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually people were claiming that elsewhere, citing this page as a source. It 100% sounds like it is implying that they are considered a modern day neo-nazi organization by the US state department. I deleted the line entirely for being redundant and misleading. --Rebelwikipedia (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's accurate, sourced content, and the wording was already agreed to by editors' consensus on the Talk page for Sebastian Gorka, as previously noted. If you think the phrasing gives the impression that the current Order is a neo-Nazi organization, suggest here an alternative phrasing that communicates the actual status more accurately. I myself added additional content to make it clear that the WWII Order was dissolved and that the current Order is a commemorative one.Mikalra (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, wait: I see that someone has moved this section into the lede. I incline to agree that without further context, having it in the lede would give a wrong impression. It is at minimum better placed back into the WWII section, as it originally was.Mikalra (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting it in the WW2 section would lessen confusion, but I still think it needs to be reworded to show that it is only referencing the order during WW2. Everyone that is learning about the order for the first time and reads this page will be under the impression that they are a neo-nazi organization.

I still believe the line is redundant, because it is the unsubstantiated opinion of one country in 2016 on the contested affiliation of an order over 70 years ago. --Rebelwikipedia (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I still don't get why you would call it "redundant." Are you intending a different word?

As far as the wording goes: an earlier version of the page was more precise about this: "Along with the Arrow Cross Party and other contemporaneous Hungarian organizations, the Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook amongst "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany."" That seems to me to be more precise and to meet your desire for clarification. We could further extend this as, "Along with the Arrow Cross Party and other contemporaneous Hungarian organizations, the original Order of Vitéz is listed in the U. S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook amongst "Organizations Under the Direction of the Nazi Government of Germany," pursuant to Section 5501(a) of Public Law 108-458 under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, Act 212: General Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas and Ineligible for Admission; Waivers of Inadmissibillity." Would all editors accede to that? Mikalra (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I used redundant exactly how it is defined. The line is unnecessary information that just adds confusion.

Another related problem is that the article is now saying that there have been several different orders , which I don't believe is correct. There have not been several different orders, but rather one continuous order that has had varying degrees of legal status. These should be distinguished into periods such as the original order, order under fascist rule, order in exile, and reformed order. I would avoid language like 'this order' or 'the new order.'

You are in error - it is extremely clear to experts that there are several orders and not at all just one. If you go to the "Habsburg" Order of Vitéz on http://www.vitezirend1920.hu/ and scroll down a bit, you can see all off-shots from the Habsburg Order of Vitéz that has come about since 1997. It would appear that some of the off-shots have moved politically towards the extreme right - however not the "Habsburg" Order of Vitéz. --Jonar242 (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe you guys should delete the state department claim from the top of the page, and rephrase the one in the WW2 section as "The US Department of State lists the Order of Vitez under fascist rule as being a Nazi Germany-linked group." The ICOC line should be fixed to "The reformed Order of Vitez is recognized by the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry as an 'Institution of Chivalric Character.' Rebelwikipedia (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added a cite to an article in The Forward that makes the same claim, so we're no longer analyzing a primary source for it. Dyrnych (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the intro slightly to better reflect the article and give more context to the State Dept. regulation. I've also changed the wording of the regulation to be an exact quote; I hope this helps with neutrality? Cheers! Korossyl (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There are several factions of the Order of Vitéz. Gorka seems to be member of the "Traditional/Historical Order of Vitéz" (traditional is here not an adjective but part of the name) which is "Történelmi Vitézi Rend" in Hungarian - which - I believe - has ties with the Jobbik Party. This order is not recognized by the I.C.O.C. as a chivalric order. The only recognized order is the Order of Vitéz under the leadership of H.I.R.H. vitéz József Árpad von Habsburg, Archduke of Austria, Prince of Hungary and Bohemia - now deceased and the General Captain will probably be his son. --Jonar242 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We'd have to be be very careful how we include anything on those lines, especially as he appears to deny any such membership. Best we could do is to report, attributedly, what Human Rights First says on this, which is that it's been 'claimed'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• General Hugó Sónyi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)