Jump to content

Talk:Romani people in Hungary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tgr (talk | contribs) at 10:01, 14 March 2021 (→Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Duplicated material

Косовска Митровица, the material you re-inserted is copied from the Hungary article and is duplicated within this article. There is no reason for the information to be presented twice. If you disagree with my edits, please feel free to discuss here rather than reverting. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 18:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris I agree with your edits. Now the article is in better shape. Косовска Митровица (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and style?

I'm not sure I agree that this article is in good shape at all - at least not the section before the list of Contents (and actually why is it before the list of Contents?). It is strongly POV (easy for "us" to criticize? easy for who?) and the tone is not encyclopaedic at all. There's plenty of good information in there but it's not currently written in an appropriate way. Tobycek (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian discrimination section vs. objectivity?

Guys, I visited the page because I was searching for actual useful information but what I found was a disaster. Obviously there is discrimination against the Roma/Gipsy people of Hungary, but the section looks like unconnected parts were copy-pasted from newspaper articles of faraway countries, full of sudden sketchy opinions and unsupported claims... Moreover, a large part of the section is not about the title at all - eg. parody is not discrimination, even if it contradicts good taste. Also, a lower percentage in higher education can have multiple contributors other than discrimination... Not really encyclopedia-like.


My suggestion is to rewrite the section somehow like the following:

0. First of all the title is a vast personal opinion and discrimination in itself. It is indeed common to talk about Hungarian vs. Roma conflict, but Roma often consider themselves as part of the Hungarian nation, and therefore talking about attitudes of the majority towards the Roma/Gipsy minorities would be much better. (To make myself understood, the current title sounds like "discrimination of Americans against black people", excluding the minority from the nation).

1. The legal status of the Roma/Gipsy should be made clear first, ie. that all citizens are equal by law, no ethnic group can be discriminated against by constitution, minorities are protected by different laws etc.. (For instance, all citizens have to fulfill the same condition to get into state-funded higher education, contrary to what the article suggests.)

2. Tensions between the majority and the Roma/Gipsy. Different cultural roots and therefore different social status. Typical views on each other.

3. Consequences of the differences and views. Actual discrimination can come here (a Roma person denied of a job interview because s/he is assumed to steal, etc..) For the general statements there should be reliable references. For particular stories it would be important to quote different opinions. (The current article generally suggests that the Hungarians in general, uniquely hate/discriminate Romas) The political acts of certain parties/individuals should be put in this context too.

I don't feel my knowledge would be enough to rewrite the section with proper references but I'm positive it shouldn't look like this... Comandanteej (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination?

Im sorry that you people cannot read this : http://nagyszenas.jobbik.hu/content/egy-tan%C3%A1r-tanuls%C3%A1gos-levele-cig%C3%A1ny-di%C3%A1kokr%C3%B3l-olvas%C3%B3i-lev%C3%A9l It is the experience of one teacher. They threaten the teacher so much, he or she wouldn't even dare to tell her name, not even the city, because there has been several cases where teachers have been beaten up for a kid failing at class. the parent's don't instruct their children to learn, they let them watch porn movies at the age of 6 at nighttime, and instead they are screaming at the teachers. They steal at the age of 6! One of them pees on another girls bag in class. Oh and the original Gipsy language doesn't contain a word corresponding tho the word: 'work'. That should explain a few things... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:201:F1F5:64B4:1D68:9394:6817 (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a joke. Majority of Roma people in Hungary don't want learn and work. 'Discrimination' of many Hungarians isn't racism, it's experience. Assimilated Roma people are valued member of the Hungarian society. Rovibroni

What about the crime they doing? I don't see anything about the problems. The "discrimination" is just a side-effect. The gipsies killed 39 people in 2007. 25 were Hungarian victim. Crime, terror, massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.150.252 (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is 100% US and roma are untouchable, writers from America have a romantic vision of the this people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.65.13 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination

The discrimination of gipsies is called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION nowadays, i think. It is also known as POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION, afaik, and no matter what personal opinions, i.e. lies - and why - are expressed here, a student of gipsy *i personally do not see why it would be better for gipsies to be called romas, as a gipsy, i personally hate being called a euphemism* origin can now enroll to schools with LOWER ACHIEVEMENT scores than non-gipsies. Zolibacsi (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolibacsi[reply]

Language

50% Romany language? It's false. 70% of Hungarian Roma people are Romungro (Magyarized Roma people). They speak only Hungarian. In 2001 91-92% of Hungarian Roma people speak only(!) Hungarian.[1] --Rovibroni (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality problems

This article has serious POV problems. The Gypsy point of view completely predominates, slanted language is used - especially the Hungarian discrimination and Romani exodus section, the point of view of Hungarians is not taken seriously: for example the section on gypsy crime and the "lack of debate regarding the subject". I'm not very familiar with the subject, so it would be best if someone with more knowledge tried to fix some of these problems. Kostja (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so you have a proof that Roma people involment in "gypsy crime" is far much bigger than of the white hungarian crime.And please do not use term Gypsy because it is insulting,racist and derrogative name for Romani.If you continue to use that frase a will be forced to report you as a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.246.54 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense, I've known many Hungarian Roma, and "Gypsy" is exactly how they all refer to their own ethnic group when speaking in English - it is not regarded as a derogatory term. The bigger problem is getting them to admit they are Roma/Gypsy at all - they know their ethnic group has a bad reputation and the name you call it will not change that. (This is also why you see the wildly varying population numbers - I would suggest the higher figures are correct.) The dynamics of the situation are complex - large numbers of Roma seem to make a conscious decision to assimilate and identify simply as Hungarian, especially within the major cities, whilst a rump remain left behind, living largely segregated lives in Roma villages and poorer "ghetto" districts of cities. These poorer and more deprived communities are where the "gypsy crime" originates from. The situation is similar to that of black people in America. Like America there are racists on one side and peddlers of politically correct bullshit on the other, both obstructing serious discussion of a genuine social problem. 82.8.181.40 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a parody. Under "Hungarian discrimination against Roma" it lists things like gypsy crime, their poverty and school segregation, all of which is solely Gypsy fault and in fact they discriminate the majority. Segregation is just result of their low average intelligence which is largely innate, estimates are around IQ ~70.--Me ne frego (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this text is written in the Nazi style

"There are problems related to the Romani minority in Hungary, and the very subject is a heated and disputed topic."

"Objective problems"

Obviously this text is written in the Nazi style ("the Jewish problem"). The text should be read carefully by a native English speaker, who should note the facts, and then re-write the whole article in a modern way. 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that there are a lot of useful facts here, it's just written in a very out-of-date and foreign way. If no one else volunteers, and reading the above "Tone and Style" issues, I can offer to do it. 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fire ahead. Be bold! RashersTierney (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, the "Roma in Hungary" are Hungarian citizens, born in Hungary, and speak Hungarian fluently. So the article title itself is not written in idiomatic English, it would be like having an article "Negros in America" or "Jews in America" (the latter is a good example because Jewish people can also speak another language, Hebrew or Yiddish). Actually I just Googled "Jews in America" and we do have an article about it, it's called "American Jews" (and not "Jews in America"), thereby proving my point exactly. That article begins:
"American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans,[3] are American citizens or resident aliens of the Jewish faith and/or Jewish ethnicity."
By the same token,
1. The present article should be entitled "Romani Hungarians" (or "Hungarian Romani")
- or equivalently "Roma Hungarians" or "Hungarian Roma"
2. The present article could simply begin with the same sentence: '"Hungarian Roma, also known as Romani Hungarians, are Hungarian citizens or resident aliens of Roma descent."
If you would please make these two changes immediately, I will "be bold" as you suggest and improve the rest of the article.  ::: If, however, even these obvious changes cannot be made, I'm not going to waste my breath and someone with better connections has to do it. 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the change to the first sentence. I just want to see if it will lead to some stupid edit war with a person who can't speak English properly and insists on the Nazi style. I don't know how to change the title of the article: can you please change it to "Hungarian Roma" in line with the reasoning above? 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the article is intended to be only about Hungarian Roma, but also Roma from other countries in Hungary, per Romani people in Spain, Romani people in France and Roma in Greece - however there does appear to be some inconsistency accross the project and the matter certainly could be debated, perhaps at a centralised page. However, making your editing conditional on such a prior change isn't likely to be taken up. RashersTierney (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll just edit it. The article is about Roma who have Hungarian citizenship and speak Hungarian (this might be unclear from the present state of the article). Would you please change the article title while I edit? Thanks for your help. 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.157.230.192 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a poor Hungarian, with little English,sorry, but I find it inconsistent, when the article says that there is political discrimination of romas, then the other part shows their political representation/roma autonomy, self governence. Hungary sent two roma deputies to the Eurpoean Parliament, (Viktória Mohácsi, Lívia Járóka). What is more - how interesting! - there are roma MPs in the Hungarian Parliament! Am I the only one, who found this a little bit confusing: on the one hand, they are discriminated politically, on the other hand they are represented, they have the right to speak, etc. (Please, note that, not the romani people sent these deputies to the EP - their political activity is low -, but the "gadzso" (romani expression for non romani, meaning "peasants, servants") voters, and their parties!).

And I really don't understand: why is it a discrimination, that they don't go to secondary school? It is not prohibited for them (c.f. afroamericans in the USA in the 1960's.)! The hungarian state provides them with schoolbooks, meals, etc - free of charge. There are many reasons, they don't go to secondary schools, as the article enumerates some of them.For example: teenage marriage is their nomadic tradition - lots of romani girls give birth at the age of 14. Shall we prohibit a part of their heritage? So this is strange too.

Seeing that there is a "Hungarian discrimination against Roma" article as well, shall I write an article on the Antidiscrimination activity of Hungary? I found the "Hungarian discrimination" title a little bit racist - I worked for an anti-discrimination governement agency for 3 years, I never discriminated anyone! --Ltbuni (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roma culture

It would be positive to add a section about the contribution of Roma in Hungary to culture - perhaps especially music. I am not qualified to write this myself though I've seen many Roma Hungarian bands over the years. Kolya Gelsin (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

the history & discrimination sections seem quite incomplete to me - for example "During World War II, 28,000 Roma were killed in Hungary.[18" - does this mean that the Hungarian government avoided perpetrating Nazi genocide of gypsies rather more than they did for Hungarian Jews? were these 28,000 killed by the Nazis or fighting with Hungarian troops or killed as civilians in the bombardment of Hungarian cities or/

and what was the situation of gypsies under communism?

Kolya Gelsin (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism

See Talk:Roma (Romani subgroup)#Possible plagiarism --Tgr (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Roma people

The article originally states "Various estimations put the number of Roma people between 5 and 10 percent of the total population.". User Hortobagy has changed this to "Most estimations put the number of Roma people between 6 and 11 percent of the total population." by citing this [2]. However, this source talks about 7%, so it does not support the changes he made. That's why I have reverted it. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to start an edit war. You perfectly know that estimation are between 600,000 - 1,000,000 in Hungary which corresponds to 7-11% from 9,900,000 total population.Hortobagy (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hortobagy, I suggest that you should read more carefully our community rules, including WP:NOR. Do not refrain from adding information to any of the articles based on reliable sources, but please remember that Wikipedia is not the proper place to present our original research. Borsoka (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hortobagy: WP articles should not be built upon what we think is true, but only on sourced material. I do not have any problem with changing those percentages, but you should provide valid, reliable sources. So far you have failed to provide sources which would support your edits. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many are them? After your sources? Hortobagy (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Officially (according to the latest census), about 3.2% of Hungarian citizens declared themselves Roma. However, this should only be treated as a lower estimate and there are many other estimates available. For example, this one [3] talks about 7%, and that one [4] talks about 8-10%. On the other hand, this [5] soruce talks about 5%. Thus, as you can see, various sources use different estimates. If you want to use the 11% as an upper estimate, then you should cite reliable sources which support this. Otherwise, the original percentages will be restored. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10,5 % you can estimate as 11% isn't it right? Hortobagy (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources which support your numbers, please, bring them forward. Otherwise, don't waste our time. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2009/hungary-roma.html Hortobagy (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above source confirms the estimation of 10% (ten percent). Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you know it's from 2009, today is 2013 and Roma in Hungary increased. Hungary's population decreased. Hortobagy (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put back the original sourced estimates, but of course, the issue can be reopened anytime, if reliable sources are provided. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Are we sure that a proper article on the Romas in Hungary must only concentrate on discrimination? Are we sure that an article can be written on them without referring to their history, culture or their role in the Hungarian culture, economy? I think this article should be rewritten based on reliable sources. I emphasize that discrimination against Roman is an existing problem in Hungary, therefore it should be properly presented. However, we should not discriminate a whole population by suggesting that their only role is to be subject of discrimination. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. Several data are missing or not properly presented, while the section about discrimination against Roma (which is certainly an existing problem) is a bit over-represented compared to the whole article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you can only do a separate article like discrimination against Roma people in Hungary Hortobagy (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the discrimination against Roma people in Hungary? Can we open a discussion here about what this article must contain?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sources for the article

I think that this is a rather important article. However most of it only contains events, or grievances, but not structural analysis. I think we should upgrade it ASAP. Seeing that almost every single effort incited harsh reaction (deletion and calling others names) on both side (pro- and anti-roma), I would like to invite the editors concerned to have a discussion about the possible new content of the article. I am not against description of events, so I don't want to delete anything, but I propose, that the following things/issues must be in or must be detailed more in the article:

1. Racist crimes, murders, hate speech against the Romani, the judicial procedure against the accused persons

II. State policy towards minorities on national and on EU-level

III. Situation of Romani in Hungary

IV. The so-called gypsy crime: the notion / what the others see as gypsy crime

Opinion? Other sources? --Ltbuni (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Romani people in Hungary. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Romani people in Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violence Against Ethnic Majority

The article currently contains a section titled, "Romani violence against the ethnic majority," which consists entirely of this passage:

On October 15, 2006 Roma mob lynched an ethnic Hungarian teacher in front of his two daughters in the village of Olaszliszka.

Beyond the obvious problems with this sentence (its faulty English grammar and misrepresentation of the event, which was not carried out by a mob, but rather the family of a girl who had been brushed by the teacher's car), I wonder why it is included in this article. Is this article a list of individual crimes committed by Romani people in Hungary? And why is there an entire section entitled "Romani violence against the ethnic majority"? Does one particular incident constitute a pattern of violence against the Magyar majority? This section, "Romani violence against the ethnic majority," strikes me as purely inflammatory, and it doesn't add anything to the article, which is broadly about Romani People in Hungary, not a compendium of every event that has ever involved a Romani person in Hungary.

I've tried to remove the passage, but I've been reverted twice, without the reverters giving a rationale as to why the passage belongs in the article. So, why does this one particular crime deserve an entire section in an article that broadly covers Romani People in Hungary, and why is the section title, "Romani violence against the ethnic majority," appropriate? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Borsoka has reshuffled the relevant section, removing the subsection headings and placing the sentence about the Hungarian school teacher above the paragraphs about violence against Romani people. Unfortunately, that sentence has gotten even more mangled in the process. I'm still not sure why it's even in the article. Why are we mentioning this one particular crime? -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Why do you think it should not be mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Borsoka, but you'll have to try harder than that. Don't revert my edits again without first discussing here. I'm putting back the subtitle, and then you can engage here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that a serial killing against six Romani is much more important, which has to appear in this article, while a lynching of a Hungarian teacher by a Romani mob (not only the family, anyway...) is marginal. Plase, consider your double standard. Just an example, I am using your "argument": "So, why does this one particular crime deserve an entire section in an article that broadly covers Romani People in Hungary, and why is the section title, "Violence against Romani people," appropriate?" Both crimes are notable (most notorious) events and well covered by media. For instance, a play even based on the Olaszliszka murder, first published in 2015. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norden1990, the reason why the section on violence against Romani people is appropriate in this article is that there is a significant history in Hungary of racism and violence against Romani people. The serial killings perpetrated by organized fascist gangs, covered in the article, are just a part of that history. That history is significant enough that it warrants inclusion in an article that generally discusses Romani people in Hungary. However, a single crime committed by a small number of Romani people in Hungary is not significant enough to be in an article that broadly discusses Romani People in Hungary. To give a comparable situation, we might expect an article on the Jews in Russia to discuss the pogroms, but not to list one particular crime one Jewish person once perpetrated. Violence against Romani people by far-right elements has been a major issue in Hungary, which is why it merits inclusion in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may not know, but that "single crime" caused a real shock in the Hungarian society in 2006: the teacher was murdered because he hit a Romani girl (who, thanks to God, survived the accident). Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the progroms against Jewish people in Russia. Do you think that thousands of Romani people have been murdered during organized progroms almost each decade of the last 300 years in Hungary? If you think that this is the case, you should read some books about the history of the Romani people before editing articles relating to them. Borsoka (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka, I think you understand my analogy with an article on Jews in Russia perfectly. I think it's a show of bad faith to constantly claim not to understand my posts. Again, you'll have to explain why you think this particular crime (yes, a "single crime") deserves space in an article that broadly covers Romani people in Hungary, and why the heading "Romani Violence against the Ethnic Majority" deserves a subsection heading. Is that a phenomenon that is significant enough to merit a subsection in this article? It looks like it's simply been shoved into the article as some sort of counterweight to the section, "Violence against Romani People." But the single crime included under the heading doesn't merit its own section. I'd also like to point out, for the third time, that the article describes that crime using a completely ungrammatical sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Sorry, I think, bad faith can only be demonstrated on your side. No, I did not understand your analogy. Your comparison demonstrates that your knowledge both of the history of Jews in Russia and of the history of Romani people in Hungary is highly limited. (2) I have not stated that the heading "Romani violence against the Ethnic Majority" should be preserved. I only stated, that specific crime should be mentioned, because it caused a real shock in the Hungarian society. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll go ahead and remove the second heading then. If you want to mention the crime against the schoolteacher, then you should do two things:
1. Find a better place for it in the article. It doesn't belong in the section about anti-Roma violence.
2. Fix the grammar of the sentence.
And for the record, I think my analogy with Jews in Russia was entirely clear. Do you not agree with it, or do you really not understand it? There's an important distinction there.
-Thucydides411 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. Yes, your analogy with Jews in Russia clearly demonstrates that your knowledge on the subject is limited. Please try to find a consensus before removing text from the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look Borsoka, you can think whatever you'd like about my knowledge of the subject. It's irrelevant to the discussion here. As for removing the heading, "Romani violence against the ethnic majority," you yourself said you're not advocating it be preserved. Since you don't care for its preservation, since neither you nor Norden1990 have articulated a reason for having that subheading, and since it's a racially inflammatory subheading, I've removed it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violence

I don't understand why "Violence between Romani and the majority" title was reverted - the most neutral title possible...--Ltbuni (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because it's a POV title. You inserted it because you don't like mention of anti-Roma discrimination. There is a long history of anti-Roma violence in Hungary, which you're trying to relativize by including every instance of a Romani person committing violence that you can. You've inserted a number of individual crimes committed by Romani people, moved them to the top of the section, and then changed the title of the section. This is all overtly POV editing. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to play out your political fights. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was chronological order, that is why I added them on the top....!!! An article should cover the widest scope possible of the facts. There is the phenomenon of tension between majority and Romani. It is a sociological fact. What is more: both sides suffer from it. What You suggest doing, is ignoring one side of the story. What do You propose, in which article should we insert these facts, You feel irrelevant here? Should we drop the Romani Self-Governement, EP -members as well, because it does not fit in Your perception? --Ltbuni (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ltbuni, you've made numerous posts now across Wikipedia about your political objective in editing here. You frankly shouldn't be editing on topics that you're unwilling to approach neutrally, and that includes Hungarian-politics-related articles. Combined with your blatant canvassing, you're way out of line here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not in a position to decide who can or can not edit Wikipedia. So drop Your Social Justic Warrior attitude and try to understand other people's point of View. --Ltbuni (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in Violence Section

The violence section should deal with the general issue of violence, rather than being a list of every act of violence ever committed against or by a Romani person. To that end, for each of the incidents raised in the article, editors should show below why they are notable, in a general sense. I fear that the section, as written, is just a tit-for-tat list, where if some editors include a violent incident against Romani people, other editors feel the need to find violent incidents by Romani people against Magyars in order to balance out the section. But do all of these incidents belong here? Are they all notable and relevant to the general subject of Romani people in Hungary? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

Skyhighway,

you seem to do reverts without reason and meanwhile you are ignoring important imformation. Your addition has a bad format (missing ending bracket) and I don't see the reason why you are should round to 9% and after practically repeat the same information, with 8.8 and you repeat also the linking of the Romani people, it does not have a real sense. You can express your opinion here, in the talk page, but please until restrain yourself from sudden reverts.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You were the one who put 9% and 8.8% in the same line, repeating the information with the same linking. It seems you did not even understand what I was referring to, and/or you did not even check how your addition looks like in the page...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

User:Borsoka

Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only because you're admin doesn't mean you're right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romani_people_in_Hungary#Recent_reverts what do you have against Romani people from Hungary? Skyhighway (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I do not have anything against Romani people. Please try not to delete properly referenced sentences. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka, why don't you try to be more objective and not to present only the POV of Hungary? Skyhighway (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may not know, but Hungary does not have a POV. The Hungarians do not have a uniform POV either, so I cannot push a Hungarian POV. Why do not you try to read and apply wp policies? You could seek assistance at WP:Teahouse. Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP policies advice for consensus. You haven't reached one with me or others. Skyhighway (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romani people autonomy fight in Hungary

Autonomous Hungarian Roma Province it's an idea that appeared recently. This is based on over 10% Romani people in Hungary. [1]

Let us check the double standard of Hungarian users on this. Skyhighway (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was proposed by one single Roma man. Do you have any other information on this issue? Please read WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But he represents how much population? 10%.. why don't you give territorial autonomy like you want for Seklers? I want to see how you edit Wikipedia and support also this idea...what do you say? would it be fair? Skyhighway (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we cannot use WP for propagating autonomy for a population which do not want it. Please, do not use WP to share your original research with the community. Please read WP:NOR and WP:DUE. If the notability of the piece of information that you inserted cannot be verified, it should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So let me understand your double standard, you do propagate autonomy for a population (for example you know which) but when comes to situation in Hungary, when more than 10% live in Hungary and they want, then you don't support. How double standards. However, wikipedia readers should be informed about reality and facts. Not about your POV agenda. Skyhighway (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not propagate autonomy for any population. Please, do not duplicate all discussions. Borsoka (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)©[reply]

Most researchers estimate that the Roma comprise approximately 9% to 10% of Hungary’s population, even though official statistics compiled by Hungarian authorities are always lower than this, and almost certainly underestimate the actual size of the country’s largest minority. My post-modern streak tells me that if people choose not to identify themselves as Roma for the census, then that is a choice that must be respected and—anyhow–ethnic identity is ultimately a construct. If you claim not to be Roma–even though your parents considered themselves to belong to this minority, and society thinks that you are one as well–then we must accept and respect your decision and view you as Hungarian only, or whatever other ethnic identity you choose for yourself. This is my default position when it comes to issues of ethnic, cultural and national identity. But if people of Roma origin in Hungary are not reporting their heritage to census officials because they fear discrimination, then there is a problem. I suspect this to be the case, even though Hungarian society is traditionally quite assimilationist.

Attila Z. Papp, a researcher affiliated with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences’ Minority Studies Institute, presented research findings on significant demographic changes in Hungary that made headlines in the Hungarian media. The conservative Heti Válasz weekly magazine wrote about a “demographic revolution” and how there are now 298 schools in Hungary where Roma students form the majority of the pupil base. In Budapest’s 8th District, nearly every second student (43%) enrolled in elementary or high school is of Roma origin, while the proportion of Roma pupils in the adjacent 7th District stands at 23%. The right-wing Magyar Nemzet daily tried to nuance the story by speaking with another researcher of Roma-related issues, István Forgács, who pointed out that all of these statistics are estimates, as there are no exact figures relating to the ethic composition of Hungarian schools. Privacy laws dating back to 1993 prohibit Hungarian authorities from gathering such data. That having been said, he feels that Mr. Papp’s estimates are probably among the most accurate of those compiled in recent years. Mr. Forgács emphasizes that when exploring the relationship between poverty and a specific ethnic minority, the focus need not be on ethnicity, but on the question of the socio-economic milieu within which children are being raised. “It’s not the same if a child is raised in Pasarét and has a realistic chance of gaining admission to a foreign university, or if he/she is raised in Sajóköz, with welfare being their only prospect,” observed Mr. Forgács. (Pasarét is a leafy, relatively affluent neighbourhood in Buda, while Sajóköz is located in the economically disadvantaged northeastern Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county.)

Mr. Papp’s research, based on information obtained from school principals, administrators and teachers, suggests that 33% of students in Borsod county public schools are of Roma origin, while in neighbouring Nógrád country, this proportion stands at 34%. Mr. Papp adds that drop-out rates are highest in these regions–and the performance of students is by far the lowest–which should not come as a surprise, as this is usually the case in economically disadvantaged areas, regardless of ethnicity.

References

  1. ^ – Referendum proposed on autonomous Roma province in Hungary. In: The Hungarian Free Press. 28.09.2017. http://hungarianfreepress.com/2017/09/28/referendum-proposed-on-autonomous-roma-province-in-hungary/

violence section

It is extremely unusual to have crimes committed by individuals of a particular ethnic group included in the article of that group. For example, the Hungarians article does not contain details of the crimes included in this page, the African-Americans page does not detail crimes committed by African-Americans against members of other groups. Given there is no source which indicates a motive of racial conflict/racism in the lynching of the school-teacher, it can have no place in this article. In fact it is merely there to present a situation of racial discrimination against the Roma as part of some kind of conflict. There is no scholarly literature describing racist violence by Roma against "majority" Hungarians, whereas there is copious evidence of the reverse. I am removing this due to WP:WEIGHT.

Boynamedsue (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said there should be a racial motivation for a conflict? The title was Violence between the majority and the Romani people, which you unilaterally changed, hence your argumentation does not stand for the earlier version.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
It is irrelevant to the page then. There is no source describing "a conflict", merely a lot of sources that describe systematic violence against the Roma. Do you have a scholarly article which describes "Violence between the majority and the Romani people"? Because without that, individual reports of crimes are a collection of WP:OR and synthesis. Of course there are crimes committed by members of various ethnic groups against each other, but they are not of encyclopaedic interest in articles on that group unless they are mentioned as part of something bigger.
As it happens, there is scholarly literature on the specific crime you wish to see included, but it talks about the racist use made of an individual criminal action, as part of the racist discourse on "Gypsy Crime". If you can wait a couple of days I will include it in a new properly sourced paragraph on perceptions of criminality. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A section title may be formed by close pharaphrasing, and yes, I am sure I'd find lot of sources for these, since the issue since a long time is extensively discussied, until today, with recent events. The problem is you changed the section to only identify atrocities suffered, but not vica versa or the general problems/issues from the other side (shall they be included into the so-called racist discourse or not, since apart from that these problems exist, and just because some radical discourse use it, it does not mean the problem did not exist or it would be just a racist canard). Ok, now I'll wait and see what you'll perform, but this does not mean the current version has consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Academic articles that support the idea of a conflict, the source linked previously did not. In the mean time, could you go and add crimes committed by Hungarians against Roma to the Hungarians page? Also add a section on violence by African-Americans against white people to that page. It should be good for a laugh.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, read back if you did not understand properly what I have said, also some of your recent additions has to be formed.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry I don't understand, the word "formed" doesn't make sense in this context. Could you try rephrasing?
First of all, the source is a bit old and it summarized happenings until then, but not even accurate. Officially no discimination occured after the war periods, and after the fall Communism, not any party did or could afford such by any means. Debate may be about how effective were the Roma policies helping the Roma to integrate, but the sentence needs serious rephrasing, or to be abadoned fully.
About the police chief (Albert Pásztor), you are as well not totallz right, since the police chief did not tell anything by a racist manner, but based on the criminal statistics at his region responsible of. Even later as I said, the parties who run him explained this, similarly to the U.S. where statistics record race, etc. This is a political tabloid, that was very good to create scandals and use it in the political life, as the other issue, which was only condemning the criminal parts who killing people, not the entire community. These are not the most relevant cases that would even properly fit.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The source does state anti-Roma sentiment among the population has been constant, with periods of intensification. There are others I will add too, looking at the wording. The edit included "often" with regards to government discrimination, as there was a period between 1996 and 2005 when we could say the government was not anti-Roma, and some periods of the Communist era too. Therefore effectively, the wording is already saying what you are.
The Hungarian government does not collect statistics on the ethnicity of criminals, therefore the police chief was speaking of his personal impressions of crimes. Petty thefts are generally not solved, therefore this impression must be based on incomplete data, and in any case they are a total generalisation. To claim that "gypsy crime" is a problem is a neo-nazi talking point, that must not be given credibility in the text.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, anti-Roma governments did not exist in the timeline I referred, both political sides made alliances with Roma organizations and put Roma representatives in the parliament, any criticism is again the political game of the two sides, in order to win the Roma votes for the elections, which may be decisive, so this is out of question.
Please do not confuse statistics collected by the Hungarian goverment with the criminal statistics of the Police. Even in the television, when they ask the help of the people, they refer as dark-skinned, creole-skinned if relevant, not because of any discriminative manner, but obviously those charachteristics that help identification, including eye color, facial hair or any other significant attributes like he weared a red t-shirt and white boots, with glasses or having a tattoo on his right arm, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Have you got a source in which the police chief claims to have statistics of that kind? Otherwise, that looks to be OR. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just because you are not well informed and don't know the details of some issues professionally, it does not mean others doing OR. ([6]), ([7]). It clearly outlined, noone debated the validity and the accuaracy of the statement, which in fact the police leader even read out and took from the police administration and the descriptions of the cases. Even when he was dismissed, he was not dismissed becasue of any anti-Roma attitude, it has been stated that such declarations should be avoided as it could raised some problematic isses, the charachterisation of some commited crimes.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

There is nothing in either of those texts which suggests to me that Pastor's declarations were not racist, nor that Hungarians considered them not to be so. The fact his comments were considered to be "anti-Roma" (by foreigners and Hungarians) and that he was then selected as a candidate is relevant for a "anti-Roma sentiment" section. The genocidal statement of Bayer, and the support for it from Fidesz is sourced very widely, and you have not disputed it here, so I have put that part back in. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have to separate journalist opinion or public opinion fom the facts, in order to be neutral. In the sources it is clear what he told, was read out from the police documents (ethnic background of criminals in some cases). Also his boss who removed him, never ever said or affirmed his declarations would be racist, but only that such charachetrization has to be avoided because it is unfortunate. On the other issue, I expressed why the inclusion is not supported, so it is alrady the nth time you disregard our policies and continue edit warring. Bayer's statement was not made against collectively the Roma people, but against those Roma criminals who commit manslaughter. Fidesz did not made any support, and did not condemn because it was not an Anti-Roma stamement. By that means, you could also put a section to Attila Lakatos, the Roma-voevod from Borsod, who also openly declared there is a Gypsy-criminality in Hungary (again, himself is a Roma leader), etc. The catch is the political SOAPBOX is taking every manifestation immediately as anti-Roma, depending on which political side the author could be bounded, the opposition media start's to visionate and publish many invented aspects that are far from the reality, as in the other case, and this biased publicists are shortened and taken by the international media, it does not matter other sources as well explain it neutrally. So, adding anything do this section that not fully comply with real and clear Anti-Roma sentiment, that violates the policies I referred. You may say you added two disputed cases from different political sides, but it's not a real neutrality if both cases are disputed and cherrypicked. The section - and the above one - properly summarizes the relevant matters.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
NO, I am taking sourced academic material which states that certain actions and behaviours are racist, and using them to add points to the article. There is a hell of a lot of it too. It's not about my opinion, it's what the sources say. I have lots and lots of sources re. Pasztor and Bayer, now if you want to talk about wording, I am happy to do so, but blanket exclusionism is not an option. BTW, please refrain from accusations of edit-warring. Up to this point you have made no defence of Bayer, this was the only part I added. I'm surprised you would try, tbh.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you took them, but a bit blindly, because we struggle for WP:NPOV here. Did you understand what I described earlier? The sources not walways describe accurately events, and marks them anti-Roma even if it was not a clear racism or motivated by such. So if you wish to include all individuals who were accused/regarded to have anti-Roma statements, the list would be quite long, according to your sources which come mainly from one political side's evaluation (the only exception is Pásztor's case). Sorry, it's not an accusation, you did edit-warring, despite multiple times I asked you to follow our policies, or you are not aware of WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS? And please read back, if you still falsely imply I was not against inlcusion of any such cherrypicked cases, my edits and the talk proves that, so please stop this.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Borsoka:,
nobody debated what was said, did you read the talk? The discussion is not about the relation of the publicists commen't with human standards.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand how the deletion of a sentence about Bayer's statement is verified by any of the statements above in this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kiengir, I am happy to include qualifiers such as "was accused of racism" for the Pasztor case. But as Boroska states, the Bayer case was not even mentioned by you after your edit. I hadn't even noticed that you had cut it to be honest, which is why I didn't put it back immediately. I feel that a statement such as this, supported by members of the government is incredibly pertinent to the article, as do most sources on anti-Roma discrimination. It's hard to understand what argument could be made for its exclusion. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a remark: no members of the government supported Bayer's statement. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps I should have said "supported Bayer", although not his comments. Gabriella Selmeczi came very close though. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boynamedsue,
Borsoka did not mention what you say, on the other hand, read back, "the other issue, which was only condemning the criminal parts who killing people, not the entire community.", so not spelling his name does not mean I did not refer that I disagree inclusion, which has been in coherence with my edits and edit logs and other explanations.
@Borsoka:,
the shortly the catch is if just because some manifestations are considered or the individual accused of being Anti-Roma, would that mean in fact the subjects is? If someone condemn a subgroup of a minority not because they are Roma, but becasue of they criminals involved in manslaughter? Or Pásztor is anti-Roma, just because he made open the criminal statistics of some crimes? You know the best some sources, really play on these epithets, hoping political gains and big internation scandals, when the reality is a bit different, sometimes not even halfway.
Should not we include in case that the Roma members of Fidesz and Roma alliances of Fidesz also refused to condemn? Why we don't mention Attila Lakatos who verified the phenomenon which Jobbik introduced?(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
We can mention anything which is supported in the article's context by reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lakatos is not noteworthy in terms of the article, he is a Fidesz supporter of low rank, the "voivodship" of gypsies appears to be a title handed to him by as small number of Roma businessman linked to Fidesz. He doesn't even have a Hungarian wikipedia article. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, he has been noteworthy and mentioned by the mainstream regarding the events, it is sourced.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
It is unacceptable to have the view of one individual, a completely un-noteworthy individual, given such prominence. It's a gross introduction of POV. If you want it in, please introduce balance by finding other Roma individuals' comments on the matter. It is clearly there to try and imply "look, even the gypsies say gypsies are criminals". It is either necessary to balance the OPINION or exclude the opinion. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am reverting your blanket revert, because you have eliminated a large amount of sourced content, including new material. The section regarding Pasztor now accurately reflects the source, Pasztor does not claim to have statistics, he claims to merely summarise police reports. The source about Navracsis clearly states that he supported Bayer after initially criticising him. Please discuss rather than reverting. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and this has been already disucussed above, mostly your problematic edits need to be balanced, which lack mostly of necessary neutrality (thus making generalizing implications). Btw. your argumentation about individuals is really something, since you were the one who were introducing individual manifestations to the article, so you have to bear them to be balanced, otherwise we should remove both as discussed above. I did not remove with my revert any "large content", just the two you mentioned, I let a whole pharagraph (but now even those, and corrected your inappropriate spelling of names as well).(KIENGIR (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Surely you see that including one person, and only one person's opinion on the matter violates NPOV? NPOV means we must include a variety of opinions or none. The reactions of Fidesz members are there to illustrate the degree of acquiescence which Bayer's views receive within Fidesz, which is relevant to the question of discrimination. Why do you believe the opinion of Lakatos is important to add when nobody else's is? He is not in any way a prominent individual, he does not even have a wikipedia page in Hungarian. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said noone else's opinion should be omitted. Read just your own lines. We may include a variety of opinions or none, but you wish to restrict the earlier and making it selective. E.g. if the press considered Navracsics', Kocsis' and Lakatos' opinion to mention, no reason to censor out - especially he is a Roma, and a known prominent in his community, really fulfill variety -, indeed as well further opinions may be added. However, I think there is already enough information about these issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Well, if you want his opinion included, the onus is on you to find other gypsy voices. There are also concerns about the sources, I am not sure that the right-wing Hungarian press which seeks out Lakatos because he says what they want to hear would constitute reliable sources on their own. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, you cannot omit him just because there are not other opinions presented yet from a group you outline, variety of oipions we are talking about, until it is an attributed opinion, we have no concern. Also Kocsis' opinion is not dependent whether other what did say or not. Your last sentence I cannot even take serious, since the source is in fact solid "left-wing", etc. :).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Well, again, the onus is on you to prove it is a reliable source. In terms of the article, the paragraph relates to racism among Hungarian politicians which means that the opinions of Hungarian politicians are entirely relevant. Lakatos is not a politician, nor does he seem notable for anything much. Again, he may have a place as part of a range of Gypsy opinions, but as it stands, there is no consensus for his inclusion in the text as the sole voice of Hungary's gypsies. 18:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Boynamedsue (talk)
I've had a little look at boon.edu., which is the source used to justify the inclusion of Lakatos' opinions. Admittedly I am not a Hungarian speaker, so perhaps my perceptions are incorrect, could you confirm or correct the following statements: 1. boon.hu is a local news/newspaper site for Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen, a small Hungarian county with a population slightly smaller than that of Leeds. 2. The site is broadly sympathetic to the Fidesz-KDNP coalition that runs the region, and very anti-Jobbik. 3. The site/paper supported the candidacy of Pasztor? (apologies for the lack of accents throughout). Boynamedsue (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you've missing something, atv.hu I referred, anyway both of them are RS. No, there is not such restriction that only politicians may manifest, it may be anyone, and the sources consudered it notable, your approach is totally flawed, since noone said he would be the "sole voice of Hungary's gypsies". If you refer to consensus, you now very well that regarding any of your edits so far, their inclusion is as far warranted as you accept their balancing, otherwise - as I told more times above - the whole Bayer text and collateral would go as well. I don't know such site like "boon.edu". 1. boon.hu is an online news portal, they refer to Northern Hungary, as well as news portal of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplém County (the rest I don't check, the population or comparison with Leeds is irrelevant). 2.-3. I don't have information about these.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

OK, if you do not know anything about about boon.hu's political stance, it is difficult for me to accept it as an RS. A local news website (of unknown reliability or otherwise) is certainly not sufficient to establish the notability of Lakatos' comments, to include them would be giving them undue weight in a national level issue. The ATV quote would only establish Lakatos as relevant for the Bayer case, not the first quote used, and only for a paraphrase of: "Attila Lakatos, the gypsy voivode of Borsod county, made a statement to the Magyar Nemzetnek in connection with the Ózd massacre. He said he had no word on how that could be done. “It’s unforgivable, to these I have to say yes, this kind of gypsy is really an animal. I can't tell you anything else about them, ”Lakatos said to the paper." I will have a look at the notability question for ATV, but I have no reason to doubt you in that respect.

Unless you find other quotes by gypsies regarding Bayer, then including Lakatos, and identifying him as a gypsy, means that you are falsely giving the impression that he is representative of gypsy opinion. This is introducing POV into the article, and in order to contrast that, it is the responsibility of the party wanting to include gypsy views on the cases to include a range of them. The statements of Fidesz politicians are clearly relevant to the discussion of comments by a Fidesz politican, for establishing the degree of support which the racist opinions of Bayer hold in the party. The comment of a self-styled voivod, with no official representative role within the gypsy community, are not, on their own, relevant. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,
I never met such approch that a lack of knowlegde of the so-called political stance of website would determine it's RS being, with this is you imply taking sides would make something an RS, which is not the case, cannot be taken serious, when opposing issues emerge mostly RS are leaning to favor into one direction, etc. So this argumentation of yours ir out of question. Again, I don't have to find other "quotes by gypsies", and I donot give any such impression you imply, since it is attributed, and sources considered relevant his opinion among others, who have as well certain qualities attributed (on the other hand, among the Gypsy community they make their own decisions as well, so it is not self-styled, however even the RS desribed him like so).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Sources with strong political biases must be treated with caution, though they are not excluded a priori, but more worrying is the question that you don't know its biases. If you don't know such basic information, how can you be so sure it is RS? I have found a RS on Lakatos which describes him as the "self-styled voivod" linked to Fidesz, so I will add that to the page when I have time. Voivod of the gypsies is not a real title. It will not cure the WP:Balance problem, but it's a start. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen is the second largest of the 19 Hungarian counties in both area and population (cf. Counties of Hungary), and home to a significant part of the Roma population (it's the dark brown area on the map used in the article, although that is quite dated; here's a more recent one). BOON is the county newspaper, which is generally considered a propaganda outlet for the government these days (since 2018 it's been part of the Central European Press and Media Foundation, between 2014-18 it was owned by Mediaworks which is generally assumed to be the property of government stooge Lőrinc Mészáros); back when that interview was made, I don't think it had any kind of prominent political association or bias. I don't think they took much of a stance on Pásztor's candidacy either. (He ran against both Fidesz and Jobbik as the candidate of the left/liberal parties, FWIW.) --Tgr (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the original topic of this section, the Olaszliszka murder was very influential to anti-Roma sentiment, to the point where it would be a strange decision not to mention it. Here's a somewhat random RS quote: Media content analysis from that period revealed that until the early 2000s the mention of Roma in relation to crimes dropped significantly. The murder of a Hungarian teacher in 2006, however, brought an end to this short period of political correctness. The far-right Jobbik quickly interpreted the murder as an example of “Gypsy crime,” tapping into public outrage by inferring that Gypsies were innate criminals. For Jobbik, this “truth” of “Gypsy crime” had been suppressed by political correctness. Subsequent research on Roma-related media content shows that coverage of crime now openly reveals the ethnic Roma background... There is also increasing evidence that far-right rhetoric has spread in the mainstream discourse. --Tgr (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue,
what you said in the first part in your first sentence, especially that I referred, and after you contradict yourself by telling not knowing about biases would be worrying (I don't think majority of editors would know everything from any RS so detailed, just to draw e.g. whom the newspaper would support in any special election, of it would evendo such, it's hilarious...) I did not say it would "real" title - assuming you mean legal - but it still exist. Before adding anything better present here first to review.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Tgr that is really useful. So, by the sounds, you would consider it to be RS at the time the interview was published but probably not post 2014. Re what you say about Olaszliszka, we have now included it in the context you mention, the article was very different previously. My concerns are largely about the inclusion of the opinions of Lakatos as if he were a representative of Hungary's gypsies, when he represents, at best, one small clan, and at worst, himself alone. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: depends on what you mean by reliable - most pre-2014 regional newspapers didn't do much fact-checking or investigation, but didn't have any hidden agendas. In any case, if you only care about establishing that Lakatos was the voivod for BAZ county, Hungarian media did generally accept that claim. (Here's a random article from Origo for example. While also a government propaganda outlet today, it was one of the top Hungarian news sites at time.) What that means is less clear. Traditionally, voivods were Roma leaders appointed by the non-Roma authorities; the system was largely eradicated in the 18-19th century during the forced assimilation of Roma people. It was recreated by Roma intellectuals in the 2000s as a kind of revival attempt, but by that time an official system of representation based on democratic elections (the National Gypsy Council) did exist, although it was generally considered dysfunctional. Leaders of the Council tend to dismiss voivods as not representing anyone (they are basically selected by rich Roma families); voivods tend to dismiss the Council as grifters who don't actually care about improving the life of the Roma people. I don't think either group is really seen by the wider society as representing Romas. (All this is complicated by the fact that while non-Roma tend to think of Roma as a single group, they don't think of themselves as such; there are multiple ethnically and culturally distinct groups who feel little kinship with each other.) Here's a more critical take on the voivod institution from Magyar Narancs, a fairly well-respected weekly newspaper.
All that said, accepting for the sake of argument that Lakatos is a somewhat prominent Roma leader, why is his opinion relevant to the article? Roma are overrepresented in pretty crime, there is plenty of academic research on that. Many of them live well below the poverty line, their traditional culture has been largely destroyed by forced assimilation, they faced mass unemployment after the collapse of socialism (which has by now resulted in multi-generational unemployment), racist attitudes towards them are prevalent in non-Roma society, including the authorities. That gave rise to a classic underclass with all the usual consequences for crime. The Hungarian far-right tried to depict them as genetically or culturally driven to crime, and as being overrepresented in violent crime, with little basis in fact - that is also well-covered in academic literature. I'm not sure what opinions of random politicians and public intellectuals would add other than selection bias. --Tgr (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@(talk): I personally strongly agree that Lakatos' comments should not be in the article, though I feel that including anti-Roma statements by prominent politicians is useful as it reveals the degree of marginalisation which the Roma face. Anglophone readers would be very surprised to see the extreme nature and prevalence of anti-Roma racism in Hungary and other Eastern European countries, and the nature of these comments illustrates that quite well. As you say, there is also need to include details of the differences between ethnic groups labelled as gypsies in Hungary, I'm hoping to make a start on that when I find a decent source. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR, please read the above discussion about this, what happened is jusitifed, the most important is not to present opinions as facts, etc. Boynamedsue, as you can see you the above argumnentation, you falsely make that assertion theat Lakatos would be the collective voice of a community, there is not such assertion, it's an as well attributed opinion like others, which sources considered to mention, along with the others. Yes Anglophone leaders may be surprised in how detailed (="extremely open nature", saying/tellings the things quite openly/rankly/explicitly which is not usual/average) these issues became generally discussed, what it should not be confused with "extreme nature and prevalence of anti-Roma racism", as you try to describe. In other words, openly talking about "taboos" is the result of the unsolved problems and their escalations and have became common in the public discourse.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
All academic sources which I have seen agree that anti-Roma racism is extremely prevalent and violent in Hungary, they also agree that political discourse in Hungary contains large amounts of racist language. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
work your way through this lot. Remember, we are supposed to prefer academic sources to news, where possible. I simply do not see the value of Lakatos' comments to the article, except in order to include your POV that anti-Roma racism is caused by the Roma. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the same time we have to also care about neutral and factual presentation of the facts, especially nowadays in Hungary have almost neglibile issues, while in other countries in Europe some ethnic or religious groups are daily endangered and facing even physical atrocities. I have to utterly reject your erroneous assertion such "include your POV...", since such I don't have. You have to accept people see differently some events and will have more opinions, and the way you personally see the value is not necessarily shared by others, the reader will get all viewpoints, that's the most important.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You just stated a POV in your previous two posts. As it goes, there is now a 2-1 split against including Lakatos, and a 2-1 preference for the inclusion of the unqualified statement that Hungarian politicians have made racist statement. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not (and not even clear what you are talking about, btw.). We have to follow neutrality, you cannot omit opinions you dislike, neither you can present opinions as facts (especially if not all the instances has been met with the accusation itself).(KIENGIR (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Given that Tgr and myself agree that the inclusion of Lakatos is not desirable, and no more users appear ready to comment, I have removed references to him from the article. I'm sorry I couldn't come to an agreement on this with you KIENGIR, but in this case I think we should go with the majority unless more users come forward with different perspectives. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your are completely wrong, since Tgr did not make any clear statement like you in this, but even if he would did, still no consensus would have been reached (to say nothing of, you did not just remove from one part of the article - despite he reinforced the source is reliable - but as well from the other part, but then consequently the whole section should have been removed per the discussion). Your last sentence as well reinforce you don't know/understand or pretending not to understand what consensus means.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I disagree with your interpretation of TGR's comments. The view that Lakatos and his comments are not notable (2 people) has more support than the view that it does (1 person). So from that standpoint, I consider it best to leave them out provisionally.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He just raised a question, regardless if you agree with me or not. You just reinforced you what I have wrtten in my last answer, not understanding what consenus means, and all participants stance matters btw., including mine. Moreover, I reiterate again, as per our discussion, either we remove the whole section at each instance, or leave everything, this you were told from the beginning, so stop these unilateral removals.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
There is no consensus for Lakatos's inclusion and there are serious doubts with regards to WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE for including his opinions. I would suggest taking it down the arbitration route if you feel it should be included.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boynamedsue,
pretending continously differently the situation as it is the worst you can do, if there is not consensus for inclusion, then as well there is no consensus the inlcusion fo the sections you added, because then especially fails WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE which has been demonstrated more times here, regardless you wish to turn the things upside down, which has been the main problem of your edits since the beginning, and you were told more times only until then their inclusion is supported if you let them balance. Simply do not understand what consensus means, and arbitration is this discussion in the talk page, which resolution you do not follow but seriously harm continously. This was the last time I explained, and no more you may ignore it or pretend not to understand.
Consequently, the corresponding sections will be reset (the upper one to Revision as of 22:54, 3 September 2020, the below one to Revision as of 22:18, 9 September), as no consensus, however, the last stable version would be the Revision as of 21:05, 18 September 2020, which you started to challenge again from the middle of nowhere. Either this, or that has only consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Please stop edit warring, anti-Roma sentiment is very well-documented and is supported by academic sources, deleting a section that deals with it is clearly not-justified.. Your POV pushing is getting a bit desperate here. Could you possibly try and take this to some form of arbitration please? Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your misleading edit logs, accusing others of what you are doing. Edit warring you started (actually restarted in December), since the beginning, and you were warned a few times politely to respect our policies, which you fail to do (actually you were removing reliable sources, and you were told the situation more times, POV pushing is your problem). It's time to take it serious and decide your stance, which of the two options support, that may have consensus, but not any partisan solution of yours which goes against it (and read back the discussion, if it's not clear, you cannot play this game further).(KIENGIR (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Kiengir, I understand that you feel very strongly about this, but I doubt we will reach any consensus here. Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes that you should follow if you wish to exclude the "anti-Roma sentiment" section and the racist comments of Zsolt Bayer, and to include the comments of Lakatos. You need to start following these procedures rather than edit-warring. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boynamedsue,
it is your final warning to stop misrepresenting the facts, it has zero connection to my feelings. Edit warring is what you did, not resetting the page to status quo ante/last stable or last consensus what I did. If you think you are exempt our policies and guidelines, you are utterly wrong (ironically you fail to follow procedures, like WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and not the first time, to your misfortune everything may be read and checked, and not just here, I suggest to revert yourself quickly). In case you don't decide finally which version you prefer (the full one, including everything, or the one which does not include everything), then the last stable revision will be reset indeed.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I'm asking you again to take this through the official wikipedia dispute procedures. Your edit at 4.55 is counted as a revert according to WP:3RRNO: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." You will end up doing 3 Reverts if you continue to follow this path. Let's do things properly and go through dispute resolution as outlined here. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not on me, since you failed to build consensus and you were the one who started to add new content to the article. No, my revert was about WP:STATUSQUO, because of the earlier mentioned. You cannot be taken serious anymore, since you are at 6 reverts so far at this occasion and only my patience saved you until now, but after so many times you ignored our policies and failed to recognize what you did wrong and refuse listen all the happenings is not about anymore that you are an editor with little experience. Let's do things properly means that you remain at the talk page and follow our policies (which you have been asked since months, but you never understood/followed in the end), finish edit-warring and until any new outcome any of the last stable/consensused version remains per policy. If you still will not follow/understand, it's a clear competence issue, I did my job (even more than I should, per WP:AGF), but from now on the burden and the responsibility is fully yours, next to the consequences. Fair enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Kiengir, the three revert rule relates to a 24 hour period, or there and thereabouts. I agree that I should probably have asked for a third opinion/rfc some time ago, but my reverts were to avoid what I genuinely feel to be racist POV being included in the text. I am going to try to move the debate forward following dispute resolution. Please look at the next section. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop explaining me WP rules, in which I am very well educated, experienced and learned, on the contrary you should have been familirize yourself with them more thoroughly, you've got all the guide for it. You will not be exempt of any of our policies, you have to accept that, and your feelings on anything does not change that.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Summarising and resolving the debate on anti-Roma sentiment/Bayer/Lakatos

KIENGIR Let's establish what you object to before moving forward. Is the following correct?

1. You wish to include the comments of Attila Lakatos in the text.

2. You wish to exclude any mention of the comments of Zsolt Bayer from the text.

3 You wish there to be no section entitled "Anti-Roma sentiment"

4. You wish to exclude the first two paragraphs of the section entitled "Anti-Roma sentiment" from the text.

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really find unwelcome and time consuming your non-understanding, you've been explained everything overly occasions in the previous section.
You should read that back, word by word from the beginning. You were told your new additions of the article will only gain consensus if you accept the NPOV repair of them, that goes for both the Anti-Roma Sentiment section, similary to the Bayer section. You did in the end, so was no problem, all info was present. After a few months, you started to abuse these last stable version, removing parts repeatedly, in the end you implied you don't accept like this, so then that status quo was rolled back that was before the additions of the concerning sections, per talk and policy (you've been informed in time, immediately). Now this you also don't want to accept. You don't WP:OWN the article, and you are not exempt of our policies and guidelines. Both options I outlined find with me, it's up to you which you choose (but you were told also about this more times).
Consequently your summarization is obviously not correct, and even surprizing given the so many explanations before.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I'm really sorry, but I do not fully understand your position, could you possibly clarify in good faith. Your style of writing is not very easy to follow. I am sure you want to include the comments of Lakatos. Do you wish to exclude any mention of Zsolt Bayer, if not, what do you want said about him? Do you object to the sourced content re anti-Roma sentiment? If so, why? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.....let's try again:
A - include everything
B - not to include those sections/pharagraphs where from you removed Lakatos
my recent edits showed these (everything was A, except the last one, which was B, however, the approach has been similar to any of your edits apart from these so far, as you have been told so many times, read again the first part of the second sentence of my previous answer). (KIENGIR (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

So you feel that unless the opinion of Attila Lakatos, a minor Fidesz supporter with no official standing among the Roma community, is mentioned, there should be no section on Anti-Roma sentiment and no mention of Zsolt Bayer's anti-Roma remarks which made news across Europe (unlike Lakatos, who was not widely quoted)? I don't think that is a position based in wikipedia's policies. Would you be amenable to removing Lakatos' comment on Bayer alongside all the other direct comments about it, leaving only the words of Bayer which were widely quoted in both news media and academic sources? This follows TGR's suggestion above. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I feel that one sided representation without including versatile opinions are not welcome (and I never removed the whole Anti-Roma sentiment section, just some parts bundled inlcuding the title, how many times I have to explain the obvious?), and I won't reiterate the discussion about Lakatos which has been already discussed above multiple times, and regarding WP policies you've ben also told the situation, your omissions goes against neutrality (and similarly nearly all of your additions failed initially the necessary accuracy as well, better was a pov-soapbox style), and since the beginning - as I just told -, any of your additions these principles have been applied, regardless if it included or not included a person you try to put a stress pattern.
And would you remove your preliminary text as well, or from the section you put in? You pushing everywhere Fidesz-supporter, although Jeszenszky is not anymore, but strongly criticising, you additions are filled with personalizing and political shoapboxing, which is not a good direction, the Bayer case is complicated as well and for neutrality the more information is the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The preliminary text is well sourced, as are all my edits. I think your problem here is more that you disagree with the academic sources on which I am basing my edits. Could you say specifically what language you want to change? The relevance of Fidesz-supporting is that "Fidesz" is the governing party, and it is mentioned as significant in the sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the whole issue is not about "preliminary text is well sourced" or "disagree with the academic sources", but the fact you don't have an expertise knowledge on the events/subject as well you forget the important NPOV principle that do not present opinions as facts, hence your edits needed to be adjusted and amended. For instance (as said before many times), you don't give the section a title which would claim opinions as facts, as well you don't phrase sentences which are not part of the source and was not said like "refused to condemn the comments". The same at Jeszenszky, the source did not say he would be Fidesz-supporting, on the other hand it is even a dubious statement (and Fidesz is a governing party, not the...). Your twisted edits clearly targeting/following a political agenda at one direction.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The only way to resolve this is to concentrate specifically on the content of the article, you give two concrete examples of something you consider to be incorrect. In the text I used the phrase Fidesz "refused to condemn" with regards to Bayer's racist declaration. The quote upon which it is based was "No one in the Fidesz party leadership publicly condemned Bayer's article." (rs here). If you wish it can be changed to "did not condemn", to fit more exactly with the RS.
Re: Jeszenszky, he was a Fidesz supporter at the time, I can add a source for that if you want. Again it is relevant as the degree of state tolerance for anti-Roma sentiment is clearly relevant to the article.
Now, you mention other areas where opinion is included in the text, what are they?Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That source now you refer was not directly put after that sentence, and that article tells about Fidesz party leadership, not governing Fidesz party, as you quoted as well. On the other hand, I won't reiterate above that the statement was not targeted collectively everybody, but the criminals. You don't have to qualify persons at all instance about the possible political connection/beliefs, because you just want to collectively attach and equal it with a party, although they are not the same, many ambassadors and other civil servant are working during a goverment, but it does not mean they are all ardent supporters of any party, it is just enough to wikilink Jeszenszky and mention he was an ambassador.
I have to indicate, currently we are discussing under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestation regarding the Bayer issue, namely the pharagraph after the quotation:
- by the restoration of the section title which would separate statements from other happenings, instead of "Anti-Roma sentiment" -> "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" should be written (which would come after "...damages to the Roma victims".
- the starting sentence should be changed from "In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer" -> "In 2013, the Fidesz party leadership refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer"
- the sentence "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the Fidesz-supporting ambassador to Norway..." should be changed to "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway...".(KIENGIR (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of Bayer's statements, as do the vast majority of reliable sources, but please let's not derail this.
The article states that Fidesz is the governing party, thereby justifying the phrase "governing Fidesz party". I'm happy to add "leadership" to that, so it says "The governing Fidesz Party leadership refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer.."
Géza Jeszenszky, fine.
Could you possibly rephrase this: "I have to indicate, currently we are discussing under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestation regarding the Bayer issue, namely the pharagraph after the quotation:- by the restoration of the section title which would separate statements from other happenings, instead of "Anti-Roma sentiment". "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" should be written (which would come after "...damages to the Roma victims"."
It doesn't really make sense in English. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is simple, significant part does not mean every member of a community, shall it be adressed to any ethnicity.
- The article is inaccurate since Fidesz is not "the governing party", but this I already indicated above. I just inserted the text what is on that ominous sentence and it is Fidesz Party leadership solely.
- 'I have to indicate, currently we are discussing under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestation regarding the Bayer issue, namely the pharagraph after the quotation' -> claryfing what we are discussing about as part of the possible consensus building, in case of reinsertion
- Statements from happenings has to be separated (which would come after "...damages to the Roma victims." - the least sentence of the ending pharagraph), and the subjection title that was by one of accepted versions "Anti-Roma sentiment" should be changed "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy".(KIENGIR (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
-Sorry, I still don't understand what you are proposing. I oppose the use of "controversy" title, the section is about anti-Roma sentiment, all examples given demonstrate this according to according to RS. To argue that Fidesz is not the governing party of Hungary is not valid, reliable sources say it is. The fact it is in coalition with another similar party is neither here nor there. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that you don't understand (a simple insertion of a text between to pharagraphs in case as a section-title header, you should read back carefully and slowly - if you referred to this, or something else?)
- a section title header does not relate to source, but a choice, and yes, there are cases which are controversial
- my argumentation is valid, obvious facts we don't distort because of inaccurate sources. Fidesz is just one of the governing parties, it is amazing you wish to present otherwise.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry there is no nice way to say this, your English makes it very difficult to understand your points, and it is very often combined with vague and allusive statements and references to statements you have made in the past that were themselves vague and allusive.
Fidesz is frequently referred to as the "governing Fidesz party" in reliable sources, and the term "governing party" is used to refer to the dominant party in a coalition. If you wish we can change it to "Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition."
Well, despite I do consider my language is rather akin sometimes with mathematical and logical expression formulas made compact in a declarative form, in which for some is hard to extract the variables and put together, but if you especially point what is not clear, will make it clear more sharply.
Again, it is not about what is "frequently called", obvious facts which may be as well extracted from much more reliable and pertinent sources, as well here from the main pages, and in an article not directly related we don't invent an alternate reality. The country is neither governed by the Fidesz party, nor the Fidesz party leadership, and even the source does not assert this on that ominous sentence, I see enough just wikilinking the party like we agreed by Jeszenszky.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry, I am not prepared to cede any ground here. The statement that Fidesz is the governing party of Hungary is widely supported by RS, and the fact you find it to be "ominous" is entirely irrelevant to whether it should appear in the article. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here must be a misunderstanding, when I said ominous I meant another meaning which may be used differently in an another language, it's my fault, sorry. So what I wanted to say, the source on the exact sentence tells about the Fidesz party leadership, and not anything related with governing, so I don't see any point to assert this because I just explained to you why we cannot present erroneus statements as facts. The country's is governed by the Hungarian government, and two parties are in governing position.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The article refers to fidesz as "Orbán and his ruling party". The fact there is a formal coalition does not change the fact that RS use the term "governing party". I have offered a compromise aalready, if you don't want that we can simply put "Victor Orban's ruling party" as the RS says. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before considering about your offers, do you understand that we cannot present opinions as facts? (regardless an RS tell such, the facts reinforced by other articles and RS tell otherwise, and you cannot present alternate realities. It's like you'd say e.g the Federal Reserve is governing the US, not the Democratic party by an RS where it is assumed the true power behind would be differents as legally is (anyway, it is not just formal, the two parties bounded has to reach/jump an additive, doubled barrier to enter to the parliament).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
What do you feel is unfactual about the statement "governing party" or "ruling party"? It is used by tens of thousands of RS with reference to Fidesz? Do you perhaps misunderstand the term? It simply means the party in government or the more powerful party in a coalition government. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I just explained - even more times earlier (first two questions)...."governing/ruling party" solely would suggest the party is standalone ruling/governing, which is incorrect.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I also offered you the compromise of writing "the lead party in Hungary's governing coalition".(please answer here not after my next post) Boynamedsue (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you offered was a bit different, but would look like this: "In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer...", for this I would say ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, is that text, or very close to it, ok for you? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the text you introduced. It's ok, but because of your recurrent non-understanding below, I reiterate the third time, this does not mean this issue is solved since one point still left to discuss.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Anti-Roma sentiment

Now, what do you want to do with the well-sourced Anti-Roma sentiment section, which, for some reason, you deleted? I oppose the addition of "controversy" to the title. Could you explain any other changes you wish to make in simple English, without trying to use elaborate language that you do not fully control. You need to refer to specific changes you wish to see in the text rather than general statements. Please refer to this text as the version we are discussing. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless you opened a new section here and asked me to reply here, I tell you in advance we did not finish the earlier issue yet, which is just very partially related (I told you above, I put three points to be settled so I would agree all personal manifestations regarding Bayer to be removed, etc., I won't repeat here all the details, they may be read above). Thus, I just discuss that point. As it may also be read above, not an entire section was removed, the details and reasons are as well were explained (and if you claim something about me regarding langauge, I could claim about you regarding comprehension, because I again have to repeat things I already told), etc. I already told as well where and how it may be reinstated, but now we are just discussing about the section title apart from anything else, I have to reiterate this. Since all the section (with or without the full content) contains controversial issues, hence that amedment has to be added, simple neutrality.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
A disagreement about a section title does not warrant the mass removal of sourced content from an article, unless you have reason to believe the content itself is not supported by RS. I am referring specifically to the first two paragraphs of the "Anti-Roma sentiment" section, which you have made no comment about up to now.
Is there anything other than the the Bayer question and the title of the section which you disagree with in the text of the edit which I linked? Please clarify with reference to the text of the article, stating the words you wish to be changed or removed. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you did not understand anything, I am amazed (which part you don't understand from my 13:35, 21 January 2021 entry?)....A disagreement about a section title does not warrant the mass removal of sourced content from an article -> Such did not happen, read back the multiple explanations you've got so many times, also today, and before...thus your following question is not applicable, since it just shows the same, completely not understanding what I told you, even in the top of the above section...read back please and directly highlight which part you don't understand. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I understand that you have problems with the initial two paragraphs of the anti-Roma sentiment which you deleted could you outline them specifically WITH REFERENCE TO THE TEXT. Please refer to wiki policies:
Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments.[1] The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma.[2] According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open.[3] A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.[4]

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident.[5][6][7][8] This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime".[6][7][8][5] According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma.[9] The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups.[6][7][8][5] The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes.[8][3][10]

It is essential that you detail your concerns specifically, as this is sourced content and you have not yet given any detailed argumentation of what it is you object to. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you again ignore/don't understand what I said.
- (i) I understand that you have problems with the initial two paragraphs of the anti-Roma sentiment -> no you don't understand, hence the further contemplation/deduction regarding this is not applicable
- (ii) ...and you have not yet given any detailed argumentation... -> straw man fallacy, the subject is not this, as you still did not understand what I was talking about
  • I asked you to highlight which part you don't understand from my 13:35, 21 January 2021 entry? You did not highlight anything, quote me if needed (and please in the future concentrate especially what I have said and do not deteriorate to possibly misunderstood directions, save time not just for yourself, but respect other editors editing time, don't worry if it needs, I will give you direct quotes and highlights even from my own, but you have to understand the basic roots we are discussing about).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
In your edit 13:35, 21 January 2021 you do not state any specific problems you have with the text above. In fact, only one sentence even refers to the text of the article, and even then, indirectly. Unless you talk about specific points, it is impossible for us to discuss this. Do you have any problems with specific parts of the above text? Boynamedsue (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (pre) "In your edit 13:35, 21 January 2021 you do not state any specific problems you have with the text above" -> because not this is the issue now, and I explained, and my "indirect" references pointed the place where you were explained the reasons. Since you're continously circling on your mistaken path, I have to now qoute myself to hopefully enlight you (and I am very sorry despite I asked you again, you refused to quote me which part you don't understand, so any impossibility is just and only on you!
Let's reiterate:
- (i) on 17:11, 8 January 2021 & 18:02, 8 January 2021, in my entries you were explained about the situation (as many times earlier indeed). A or B.
- (ii) afterwards, you switched to the Bayer content, as asked for negotiation under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestations about the issue, so just the introductory sentence would remain with the quote
- (iii) on 14:52, 11 January 2021, you were explained what would be these three conditions. Since then two we settled, but not settled the third one yet.
- (iv) on 08:06, 20 January 2021, you opened a new section (this one), erroneously implying it would be about the third issue solely, but after my immediate reply on 13:35, 21 January 2021 you were explained the previous issue is unfinished, and only distantly related by the section title which should be reinstated anyway (stated on 16:44, 13 January 2021, the first point), regardless of any future solution of A or B concerning on that part.
- (v) Thus, until the third issue is not settled, I won't discuss the other pharagraphs issue in detail by any means (because we should go on in sequential order, to say nothing of your understanding problems, the less complication, the more easier), on the other hand why that removal happened has been as well explained already in the entry I referred at point (i), that's why you should stop preteding/implying other causes and/or ignoring/coining the issue of the discussion with straw man fallacies.
- (vi) Do you understand now fully the situation? (if not, you have to directly quote me about it, as indicated in (pre).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, I think we are going to have to go to some kind of arbitration with this. It's not really up to you to lay down the rules of how/in what order your mass deletion of sourced content should be discussed, and if you wanted to, you should at least make some effort to clearly propose a scheme by which this could happen. I will outline my understanding of what we have agreed on so far at a later date, to make sure it's clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion. Why do not you take a break for a week? You both could edit articles about other subjects and meanwhile try to understand each other's concerns. Have a nice day. :) Borsoka (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boynamedsue,
with all of my good faith I have to tell, what you do is the problem of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT. Given my near ten year experience, at such point with such demonstrations (5++ repetitions, logical and highlighted declarative explanations) I've never met any editor who would not get the point (or if any, they had to leave our community), and this is not even a hard issue (any arbitration would have the same outcome, since the evidence is here, which you continuously reject. Let's see:
really up to you to lay down the rules -> our policies lay down, which I followed and explained to you, countless times
how/in what order your mass deletion of sourced content should be discussed -> you started and implied the order, per your proposal to discuss the Bayer issue, which is unfinished, and you wish to conflate it with something else and imply another issue which you invented, although it has been explained why it is not the case
you should at least make some effort to clearly propose a scheme by which this could happen -> Oh my Gush, Jesus Christ, Maria Nostra, this is what I am doing on and on, please stop to claim such jokes, in my previous 16:32, 22 January 2021 entry everything was explained to you (as before all the time, overly). The error is on your side.
Borsoka,
your comments are refreshing :), I hope Boynamedsue will take your advice, I have doubts unfortunately he/she made real efforts to understand the obvious, I have no problem understanding this editor. It is so easy, since Boynamedsue arbitrarily removed sourced contents which he/she did not like, despite being told only those additions have consensus in which other additions and NPOV repairs will come along them, which means we present everything, or none of them (this was the base of any future consensus, laid down much earlier). I supported all along as well the full inclusionist approach, then when he/she again started to remove sourced content, the last time I tried the other option, and removed all that section (inlcuding what he/she wanted to remove). In the end it means unfortunetly Boynamedsue cannot decide which horse to ride, falsely thinking about riding two at once maybe possible, and even dare to claim I removed sourced content, but forget the other part of the story, which have been numerous times told, demonstrated, even here and even in the edit logs, by revision timestamps (which show status quo ante revisions on the concerning parts). I hope this editor is not deliberately playing with my nerves, but I have some concerns. Not understanding that case B is the direct consequence of Boynamedsue's removal of sourced content as explained more times even preliminary in cohenerence with the consensus proposals and policies etc. is the cutting edge, since I all the time endorsed case A before. So, the editor should take your advice and after e.g. one week with a fresh and cold head really to manage to understand this not so really hard thing.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]


Summary of items agreed upon above

Agreed upon:

  • No mention of support for Fidesz should be made with regards to Géza Jeszenszky.
  • The following text should be deleted from the paragraph on Zsolt Bayer, and no mention should be made of Lakatos: "However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics initially strongly criticised the statement, but later defended Bayer, suggesting that Bayer's comments were not his genuine opinion. Fidesz communications chief Máté Kocsis was even more supportive of Bayer, saying critics of Bayer's article were "siding with" Roma murderers, even though nobody had been murdered in the attack to which Bayer had referred."
  • The text "In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer" should become "In 2013, the Fidesz party, the largest party in the governing coalition, refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer" or similar.

Could KIENGIR please confirm that they agree with that? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your summarization is again incomplete and not precise at some points. Thus, I have to summarize it appropriately (and everything is meant to be asserted to the current revision to the article):

Proposal 1) The sentence "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the Fidesz-supporting ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other."" ----------changes to-------> "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other.""

Porposal 2) The section "In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer,[11][12] who wrote:" ----------changes to-------> "In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer,[13][14] who wrote:"

Proposal 3) After the sentence "The government was forced to pay damages to the Roma victims.[86]" a section title should be inserted which should be "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy".

Consensus proposal has been: - in case of Proposal 1) and Proposal 2) and Proposal 3) are fulfilled, then in the article above the Jeszenszky pharagraph the following may be inserted:

In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer,[15][16] who wrote:"

"a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method."

[17]

  • We have settled 1), 2), but not 3) yet.

That said, take a break because today I won't spend more time with you repeating obvious things, and better will edit other articles, I strongly recommend you anytime in case you'd answer anything think twice if you really understood everything to avoid stealing precious editing time from other editors. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I understand all of that, but disagree with adding the "and controversy" to the title, as it goes against the precedent of other wikipedia articles on forms of racism and the article should deal with well-sourced examples of anti-Roma sentiment. Now what is your proposal to do with the following well-sourced text which you deleted without discussion:
Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments.[1] The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma.[18] According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open.[3] A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.[19]

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident.[5][6][7][8] This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime".[6][7][8][5] According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma.[9] The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups.[6][7][8][5] The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes.[8][3][10]
There is very little chance we will reach any agreement on the title, and I simply wish for you to make what you want to do with this section clear.

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I hope to take this article to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, following dispute resolution procedures as I suggested on several occasions prior to the reluctant intervention of Ymblanter. As this requires KIENGIR to agree to particpate, I have left a comment on his talk page asking him to say whether he wishes to participate within 14 days. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(i) - (Prop 3):
- "...goes against the precedent of other wikipedia articles..." -> not true, I just checked some articles, they do not have even such section or title
- "There is very little chance we will reach any agreement..." -> it you want to achieve consensus, you have to work on it, propose more alternatives, take in consideration the other party's arguments as well. In this article, so far nearly 90% your point have been allowed to manifest, filled with nearly 10% outside NPOV repair, so obviously it's on you, and my proposals are totally correct - my generosity is as well unprecedented - since if we resolve this issue, already 95% your point would be presented in the article, and it depends in one word...so just don't blame others, and think twice.
(ii) - Boynamedsue's repeated question with recurrent erroneus implications:
I am really sorry you probably again did not chose to carefully analyze/interpret the answers I gave you, detailed, with definitive with timestamps and content, and as well that you rejected to highlight and quote what you did not understand from them - thus I could assume you understood everything, but if you would, you would not ask again this question repeatedly. You have to take the time and effort, otherwise what you do is disruptive, don't expect others will do the job which you have to. That said, from now on, I won't repeat anything anymore just will use timestamps or diffs, so you won't be able to misuse my efforts and time of repetitive explanations, which you anyway fully ignore and continously pretend to be non-existent.
- "Now what is your proposal to do with the following well-sourced text which you deleted without discussion:" -> again, this statement is again not true (and this is not the first you imply this, despite your were warned more times not to do that, but this is the last time I warn you, and I am very sorry I have to do repetitions because of you). The discussions opened since September contain the general reason, in which it was outlined your additions will only have consensus if you let them amended with the necessary NPOV repair. Despite, you started to remove sourced content from that section on 18 December repeteadly and continued edit warring. I all the time restored the last stable version, which included fully everything. After you totally ignored everything told, you have been explicitly explained in the entry of 04:44, 8 January 2021 what might happen and why, in accordance per our policies. Even my revision which performed this, contained this information in the edit log. It has been even afterwards explained again, the following four entries on that day in the talk (cumulative 5++ (!)). Then again, when you opened a new section again in the 17:11, 8 January 2021 & 18:02, 8 January 2021 entries. I could stop here, but just for the record, again yesterday twice 16:32, 22 January 2021, 18:39, 22 January 2021 (the latter even with bold highlight, that's already 9++ (!!))...
Very shortly, if you are still unable to understand in case without consensus you are abusing a part of the article, per policy it has to be restored to the previous version, before any of us touched that part, then not just DRN, but nothing may help you, the outcome would be the same, anyone may diagnose similarly you don't understand and or ignore the facts/discussions/policies. Ymblanter understood even without having time to dig into the issue hardly, because he understoods our policies along with many other members - even average editors with less experience - of our community, which you failed to comprehend fully since months.
Consequently, on this part (and as well the Bayer part) consensus is needed for reinstatement to the article. The Bayer issue is almost finished, this part has not even been started, because you did not even grasp what is the issue. That said, from now on you are ->unable to claim<- you were not explained everything, an in case of recurrent pretensions of non-understanding will not be accepted from your behalf. Hence your DRN request is a bit early - as your non-understanding of guidelines and policies is a different issue -, hence disussion and consensus building may follow here, we have enough time.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
You state that it was necessary to revert to the last consensus. The sourced text which you mass deleted had been in the article for three months, largely unchallenged. You still refuse to identify particular passages which you consider to be biased, so no further discussion of it is possible.
The mass deletion of sourced comment is not in any way connected to the title issue, or to the Bayer issue, and your attempt to make restoration of sourced comment, or even the detailed discussion of the same, dependent on you getting your way on two other questions is in violation of wikipedia policies on deletion of sourced content. If you have a problem with the content you must justify it on its own terms, not in reference to separate questions.
You have made no justification for the change of title to "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" except that you consider the comments of Bayer not to be examples of anti-Roma sentiment. Academic RS state that it is such. People in his own party say it is such, therefore it can be stated in wikivoice to be so. I do not accept your proposal to change the title for this reason. Even if it is not, ultimately, found to be justified to include Bayer, the title "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" is replacing a strong clear title with a weak one.
I feel discussing further with you here is entirely futile, unless you are prepared to discuss the reasons you feel the sourced text you mass-deleted is biased. You have a couple of weeks to decide if you wish to participate in the DRN, in the meantime I will not be posting on this page unless you have a change of heart and wish to discuss the two paragraphs you deleted from the beginning of the "Anti-Roma sentiment" section. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(i) "The sourced text which you mass deleted had been in the article for three months, largely unchallenged." -> again you started to delete from this section which had been in the article for three months, largely unchallenged, so the outcome was the direct result of your edit-warring actions, as just was explained to you today, stop coining the situation!
(ii)"You still refuse to identify particular passages which you consider to be biased" -> Straw man argumentation again, the reason was just explained by the 13:23, 23 January 2021 entry, thus I don't have to identify particular passages, because you were already told that solution A contains these two pharagraphs as well next to the other content which belongs to it and you tried to remove repetitively
(iii)"The mass deletion of sourced comment is not in any way connected to the title issue, or to the Bayer issue" -> (I assume you wanted to say sourced content, not comment) it is connected to your edit warring, when you started to delete sourced content from the article as explained by the today 13:23, 23 January 2021 entry
(iv) "two other questions is in violation of wikipedia policies on deletion of sourced content" -> no per policy the page had to be rollbacked to the status quo because of your actions, in line with the talk page discussion and policies as explained as well by the today 13:23, 23 January 2021 entry
(v) "If you have a problem with the content you must justify it on its own terms, not in reference to separate questions." - same like (ii), WP:IDHT from your behalf
(vi) "...except that you consider the comments of Bayer not to be examples of anti-Roma sentiment..." -> nope, the Pásztor case and the Jeszenszky case is as well controversial, nobody said that title just goes for the Bayer issue
(vii) "I feel discussing further with you here is entirely futile, unless you are prepared to discuss the reasons you feel the sourced text you mass-deleted is biased..." -> WP:IDHT, as per (ii) & (v), the whole discussion may be entirely futile because you fail to recognize the issue, despite you were explained over 10 times, evidence here ([8]) that you cannot claim anymore you weren't explained everything in/with full details/causes, so you either do it deliberately or by lacking competence.
(viii) "...if you wish to participate in the DRN, in the meantime I will not be posting on this page unless you have a change of heart and wish to discuss the two paragraphs"... -> you have been explained the DRN is not meant for your refusal of understading facts/discussions/policies, it has nothing to do with my heart, but your erroneus assumption about the issue, which has been already debunked. Consequently, your answer again proved unfortunately as one of the previous assumptions, and as I told pretending non-understanding (willfully or not) will not be anymore an option to you.
Hence, either you continue consensus building on one section (Bayer), and after the other section, or as I said, choose the solution A, which includes everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I would ask you to assume good faith. Your communication in English is very difficult for me to understand. However, you seem to have clarified a little. It is therefore your view that the two paragraphs of sourced content you removed, and which I have linked twice above, can only be valid content if mentions of the minor Fidesz-supporter with a self-declared feudal title, Attila Lakatos, mentioned in one RS in Hungarian, are also included? That is your perception of what you call "Solution A"? Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I would not assume good faith, I would not put so much time for the explanations. "you seem to have clarified a little" I have to take as your personal stance, since my argumentations understandability is far beyond any English skills, it's for a time an issue of semantical and logical understandability. I won't repeat - and again wasting time - the discussions about the person you mention, those may be read above wht what was said there holds. "Solution A" means what I have defined you multiple times, so I cannot understand why don't you read back and make me the work instead of you, when you were provided timestamps? Solution A means including everything, both the Bayer section and the other section, as it was before you started to delete contents from it.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
OK, I have read back multiple times and your English and repeated refusal to clearly state your position does not allow me to say with certainty what your position is. Could you confirm to me whether what I said is correct? Do you feel that the restoration of the first two paragraphs of the Anti-Roma sentiment section should be contingent on the inclusion of the opinions of Attila Lakatos? Boynamedsue (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am going to stop here actually. You have provided no defence of excluding the 2 paragraphs, except that seem to you feel they must not be there unless the opinions of one man, supported by one source, are included. The first two paragraphs are supported by multiple academic sources which allows us to use wikivoice, and should not be made contingent on the inclusion of the opinion of one man quoted in a newspaper. I'm going to present my final opinion on the text in the next few days. Have a think and see if you want to be part of the DRN. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "and repeated refusal to clearly state your position does not allow me to say with certainty what your position is" -> No, you have been told multiple times, evindence above. Solution A, or solution B, or other consensus we build, one trial started (2 points agreed at first step) which you did not continue yet. So not any means you can say, I did not tell my position clearly, I did not just on 18:02, 8 January 2021 (along many other entries), but as well 17:12, 23 January 2021. You have a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue, no doubt after this.
- regarding the your second question, obviously, and explained why.
- "You have provided no defence of excluding the 2 paragraphs" -> You should be ashamed, on 13:23, 23 January 2021 at point (ii) you where explained the reasons (which are indeed a collection of multiple earlier explanations), in case you again try to deny evidence, the result may be a civility issue. Don't forget WP is an incremental platform, denying facts are sad trials here. On the other hand, if you cannot still understand what means consensus building, it's a huge problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Final position of Boynamedsue, prior to proposed DRN

  • 1.The section title “Anti-Roma sentiment” should be restored.

There are large numbers of pages following the formula “Anti-(ethnic group) sentiment”, for example: 1, 2, 3

There is ample content from academic sources which shows Anti-Roma sentiment to be a particular problem in Hungary (alongside other European countries, particularly in the former Eastern Block), for example: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [[14]] (all academic sources)

The content included in this section before its mass deletion was relevant to the article and were all clearly examples of anti-Roma sentiment as defined in RS.

  • 2. The first two paragraphs of the ‘Anti-Roma Sentiment’ section should be restored.

The section is fully sourced by Academic RS and documents systematically and neutrally the pertinent facts of the case. No coherent arguments have been offered against the neutrality of the text, except that it constitutes “opinion”, even if that were the case, it would not warrant mass deletion. However, the text is in fact based on academic books and articles, all RS which neutrally document the nature of Anti-Roma sentiment in Hungary. The wealth and depth of reliable sources allows us to use wikivoice in these paragraphs.

The only substantive criticisms which have been made to this text are of this phrase: "Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments."

KIENGIR felt that there were periods in which Hungarian governments did not engage in Anti-Roma policy, the Communist period being specifically mentioned. However the use of “often” and “several” make this criticism redundant, and there are in any case RS which document Anti-Roma policies by the same governments.

Despite several requests, no further problems with the text have been suggested.

  • 3. The statements of Attila Lakatos have no place in the text:

Attila Lakatos is an individual with a modest media profile in Hungary, he is often called “Voivode of the gypsies of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County” which is an unofficial title which has no particular meaning or status. Some RS refer to him as “the self-declared voivode”.

Quote 1: 

Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon: “Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable."[20]

Notwithstanding the defective English of this text, and the use of the word “approved” without any suggestion of what it might be he is approving of, this quote is sourced from a local news website interview, that may not be RS, and does not satisfy the criteria of notability for inclusion. This is especially true when many, many more prominent individuals who have expressed opinions of the so-called “gypsy crime” phenomena in national and international RS are not cited in the text.

Quote 2: 

Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description.[21]

Apart from the defective English, this is supported a reliable source, a national Hungarian website. However, it is only one opinion of a private individual, found in only one RS, and again suffers from selection bias, violating WP:WEIGHT. There are many, many more qualified people who could be cited, and to make this private opinion relevant we would have to quote all of them.

I feel the inclusion of his opinions in the text is an attempt to provide WP:FALSEBALANCE, on the question of so-called “gypsy crime”, a racist moral panic emerging from the extreme right. This is also the case with his support of the racist statements of Zsolt Bayer. When even members of Bayer’s own party considered his statement to be unacceptable, Lakatos’s opinions are WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, If the opinions of an individual as insignificant as Lakatos are to be included, it can only be logical to find hundreds of quotes from better known individuals to create true WP:BALANCE. To my mind, it is far better to omit, but I am open to a process by which the diverse comments of many individuals are added…as long is it’s not me who has to put the work in!

  • 4. Zsolt Bayer’s racist comments should be included.

The anti-gypsy comments of Zsolt Bayer were widely reported around the world as examples of anti-gypsy discourse. We have quotes from the BBC, Der Spiegel, the Guardian and various academic sources. I am indifferent over whether the further comments on the scandal of senior members of the Hungarian government should be included, though I don’t see any reason why not.

  • 5. Contingency

KIENGIR has stated that the restoration of the two paragraphs of sourced text which they deleted must be contingent on the restoration of the Lakatos statement at the end of the second paragraph. This is a mass deletion of sourced content with the objective of using its restoration as a bargaining chip to force through the edits they wish to see included, and is unacceptable behaviour for a wikipedia editor. Their claim that the text is not WP:NPOV has no weight, as they have refused to discuss in what way they believe it to be so, despite frequent invitations to do so: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]

I believe this to constitute disruptive editing.

They also state that Zsolt Bayer’s racist statements can only be included if the section is renamed “Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy”. There are ample RS which identify Bayer’s comments as “anti-Roma”, there is no need to change the section title in order to make the text agree with RS.

Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will react below all of your points:
  • 1 - in case of Solution A or other consensus building trial (which Boynamedsue seems interrupted now), I support also a section title, but like Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy. The rest is again a straw man argumentation from the user this the question was not if anti-Roma sentiment would exist in Hungary, but the some cases would be as well listed under it are controversial. As well, linking to other article titles does not count here, since e.g. the Romani people in Slovakia and Romani people in Romania does not have such section titles.
  • 2 - in case of Solution A, the two sections restoration would be warranted, at is has been the subpart of the removed content, and this solution would restore the full content as it was before Boynamedsue's content removal (hence it's irrelevant on what part what kind of debates we had, since those have been already settled)
  • 3
    • - Quote 1 (default part of solution A) is supported by definetly an RS, and this issue have been already discussed, and the outcome Boynamedsue did not respect or wanted to accept, even tried to coin our rules or other users stance on this to claim removal, but this eventually failed (discussion above at the end of the violence section). That allegation only this opinion would be expressed is not true, since Margit Feischmidt opinion is also there and even others could be attributed from the sources.
    • - Quote 2 (default part of solution A) it is not necessarily clear what Boynamedsue would mean on a national website, it is a website of one of the opposition's most prominent and greatest news conglomerate, including national broadcoast, which is very unfortunate when Boynamedsue tried to tackle it with lame arguments, as we again see such unprofessional trial, so WP:WEIGHT/BALANCE/FALSEBALANCE/FRINGE is out of question, a contrary what the user said, the quote was put after other personal manifestations which Boynamedsue added, and they were even in majority :) An ardent example of WP:I just don't like it and cherrypicking and the total ignorance of NPOV, as a general problem since the user started to edit this article.
  • 4 default part of solution A, or the consensus building trial which was referred at point 1. Only not part of Solution B.
  • 5 Amazing & (sadly) amusing, Boynamedsue's statements are double reinforcing the WP:COMPETENCE issue I was suspecting a time ago. If this editor considers really the application of WP's community guidelines and policies "...is unacceptable behaviour for a wikipedia editor...", after the user's recurrent ignorance of our policies - despite always drawn the attention them in advance in the talk page - is really awesome. It is much sad that Boynamedsue again does not tell the truth by claiming "Their claim that the text is not WP:NPOV has no weight..."; consequently something that was not said could not be "..refused to discuss in what way they believe it to be so..". Too bad, the selected diffs of the user even reinforcing this, how I try to explain him/her that the recurrent erroneus assertion the user pushed is invalid. These are such a striking evidence of the problems I outlined, disruptive editing is on the contrary is the user recurrently perform an WP:IDHT pattern, despite over 10 (!!!) times he/she was explained about this and warned ([21]), ([22]), ([23]) (these diffs are even a collective description of the problematic phenomenon, but referring all to the earlier explanations, which are numerous), but still even today the user dared to deny evidence ("You have provided no defence of excluding the 2 paragraphs"), so I had to again inform him/her ([24]).
  • Summa summarum, despite the user's edits have been 90% accepted (which needed serious NPOV repairs and amendments (10%) due to the user's lack of expertise in the subject and POV language, etc.), all this show from the user's behalf is unnecessary, and I am very said the generosity towards this user have not been eventaully respected, and the recurrent denial of evidence makes it much worse, a hard showcase of sealioning which is something that should be utterly avoided in our community.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, we have already disagreed at great length. If you want to take part in a DRN, you have until a week on Friday to agree before I look at other measures. If you do want to participate, it would probably be in your interest to think of how you will clearly state your case for other editors.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you did ask me a specific linguistic question, out of politeness I will clarify. "national" in English refers to an organisation/situation/characteristic/whatever that operates at a country-wide level, as opposed to a local, regional or international level. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is not on me, I am ready to discuss as always, you've been offered even three generous solutions, and one of them you instantly interrupted although there was a little left, although it would again served your favor, that would represent that nearly 95% of your will would be followed, etc. I proved I am ready to make concessions for a good and wise consensus, you unfortuately don't go this direction (other average discussion nearly result/stuck at 50%-50%). Instead of thinking of measures, you shoulf follow the guidelines of our community, and continue conensus building, denying evidence won't lead to anything good. Regarding "how you will clearly state your case for other editors", I don't see any problem, any average editor will mostly understand what you did not manage, which resulted in this huge wall of text (only this may confuse anyone), I may summarize it even in one sentence with nearly three limbs, with references. I understood the same on "national", however the website operates at international level by default, as it's accesibility is not restricted to national level.
In order to seriously consider your offer about DRN, you should specify which would be the subject of the debate exactly, since if it would be about that one based on your erroneus statements denying evidence of explanation, highlighted in my recent answer (5), then it is not a DRN issue, as I pinpointed more times. (KIENGIR (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion would be about all aspects of disagreement. The title of the section, the inclusion of the first two paragraphs you deleted, the inclusion of Lakatos and the inclusion of Bayer, plus whatever you wanted to talk about. An overview of the process is available here: Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be about all aspects of disagreement, since it is for content issues (your obsession with the so-called "two-pharagraph" issue does not belong there, since that part had to be rollbacked because you started to remove content from it). Btw. all you listed are already part of solution B, A, as well our consensus building trial which you abandoned almost before resolution - because of one word - instead of giving further solution proposals that you were capable of the first two step (e.g. rename the "violence against Roma" to "anti-Roma sentiment", and create under a subsection controversy, I just told one), it would be quite odd and undesirable to again steal precious time even from other editors because of your lack of contructive collaboration/understanding.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I do not accept that the only options are what you call solution A and solution B, as I feel that to be inconsistent with the correct interpretation of wikipedia policies on content. However you can present that position at the DRN, just as I can present my position. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait are you suggesting that the mass-deleted two paragraphs will be restored in BOTH your solution A and your solution B? And could you possibly answer this question directly without reference to any statement you have made before. Simple "yes" or "no" will do. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the only options would be A and B, however these are the two initial options, while we started a to negotiate a third one (that one you seem abandoned,anyway all options are conform with our policies). Sorry, it's really amazing if you still did not grasp what those options mean, and you wish me again to define them the nth time? No, not both. Solution A contains everything (last stable version), solution B is the version before any editing happened on the respective areas (a direct result of your recurrent removals).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • I’m a little late to the party here an I will admit that I have tried and failed to follow the hydra of a discussion above. That being said I support the addition of the section Anti-Roma sentiment as seen in this diff [25]. I see no convincing argument from KIENGIR against its use and WP:DUEWEIGHT would appear to be overwhelming in favor of inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KIENGIR: do you think you can sum up your argument against inclusion for me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to retract these comments based on our discussion, since I won't support cloning, as well won't answer because of procedural reasons as the DRN is open (btw. your first remark shows the failure, since I proposed more solutions, in which the section you refer is included. Note: I was pinged here, as well in the other discussion, but I have a limited time, I need a bit more to catch-up).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Negative discrimination of Roma people in Hungary

Hungarian Roma are divided between Romungros or Gypsies who speak Hungarian, the Roms who speak both Hungarian and Romani (Lovari) and the Beash who speak an archaic version of Romanian and Hungarian. Much of Hungary’s Roma population has been linguistically assimilated and speak Hungarian. Half of the Roma population reside in urban areas. Regional distribution of the Roma population shows that a large proportion of Roma live in the counties of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, where they number more than 13.5 per cent of the total population.

The unofficial estimates variously put their number at between 750,000 and 1,200,000. Magysze (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Roma experience multiple forms of daily discrimination, impacting schooling and employment. They are also the target of racist abuse in pro-government media, and even from politicians. When, in 2013, one of the founders of the ruling Fidesz party, Zsolt Bayer, called the Roma “animals … unfit to live among people,” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán remained silent. Magysze (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop trolling.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

RFC on Hungarian Romani

Please specify which of the following changes should be made to the article. A Survey section follows; please answer A, B, or C (or any equivalent) in the Survey. You may engage in threaded discussion in the section for the purpose, remembering that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


In the article on Hungarian Romani, should a subsection be added at the end of the section on Discrimination, Racism, and Social Exclusion, on Anti-Roma Sentiment? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection on Anti-Romani Sentiment

Please choose A, B, or C is neither, in which case no subsection will be added.

In the Survey section, please specify A, B, or C. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.

Anti-Roma Sentiment

Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments.[1] A 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma.[22] According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open.[3] A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.[23]

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident.[5][6][7][8] This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime".[6][7][8][5] According to sociologist Margit Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, leading to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma.[9] The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups.[6][7][8][5] The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes.[8][3][10]

Members of mainstream Hungarian political parties have been accused nationally and internationally of having racist anti-Roma views and positions according to the prevailing standards in the EU.[17][24][25] The police chief of Miskolc, Albert Pásztor, who was dismissed from his position and reassigned to another after being accused of making anti-Roma statements, then reinstated following protests, was selected as joint mayoral candidate for the Hungarian Social Democrats and Democratic Coalition in 2014.[26] He declared that certain types of crime were committed exclusively by Roma people and when challenged reiterated his views and claimed they were summarized from the local police reports. As the keeping of ethnic crime statistics contravenes Hungarian law, a representative from the Alliance of Free Democrats enquired as to whether Pásztor had compiled a private archive of crime statistics. Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime.[27][28]

In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition, refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer,[29][30][31][32][33][34] who wrote:

"a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method."[17]

However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics initially strongly criticised the statement, but later defended Bayer, suggesting that Bayer's comments were not his genuine opinion.[17] Fidesz communications chief Máté Kocsis was even more supportive of Bayer, saying critics of Bayer's article were "siding with" Roma murderers, even though nobody had been murdered in the attack to which Bayer had referred.[29][35] Later Bayer declared his words had been taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, he denied racial discrimination and stated that he wished to segregate from society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper.[17][36]

In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other."[37][38] Jeszenszky claimed that these statements, which he said were based on wikipedia, were not racist, and he received support from the Hungarian foreign ministry. Due to these comments, the Norwegian Institute of Holocaust and Religious Minorities asked Jeszenszky not to attend its International Wallenberg Symposium event.[17]

Explanation by Proponent

Version A's added text contains sourced material explaining the nature of anti-Roma sentiment in Hungary, and giving examples which are considered to constitute anti-Roma racism and/or hate speech by reliable sources.

The differences between this version and version B are the following:

  • Version A uses the title "Anti-Roma Sentiment", version B uses "Anti-Roma Sentiment and Controversies".
  • Version A does not include two comments by Attila Lakatos, a self-styled "Roma Voivod" and minor media figure, with close links to the governing Fidesz party.


Reasoning for differences


  • Difference 1. The title here is Anti-Roma Sentiment rather than Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy. The reason for this is that all the content of the section relates to incidents which reliable sources refer to as anti-Roma, racist, or constituting hate speech. The addition of "and controversy" suggests that some of them may not constitute examples of Anti-Roma sentiment, which contradicts the Reliable Sources.


  • Difference 2: This is excluded from version A: Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon: "Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable." (This refers to the racist, per RS, talking point of "gypsy crime".)
1. Grammatical errors notwithstanding, this does not make sense. There is no indication in the text of what Lakatos "approved".
2. The source does not meet the criteria of notability. It comes from an interview with boon.hu, a regional Hungarian language website, for which no evidence of fact-checking exists. Regional sorces are not supposed to be used for national level stories, so as well as WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT is relevant.
3. Even if the source were valid it would still be WP:UNDUE to include the personal opinions of only one individual. If we include Lakatos a broad range of comments from individuals of differing political views would also be needed to satisfy WP:BALANCE


  • Difference 3 This is excluded from version A: Afterwards, Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description (This refers to the hate speech, per RS, of Zsolt Bayer.)
There is one valid national level source for this quote, in a myriad of international and national sources relating to the racist diatribe of Zsolt Bayer. Dozens of individuals and writers gave their opinion on this matter, the only one (except government officials) quoted in Version B is Lakatos. This is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. The quote is deliberately selected with the aim of legitimising Bayer's hate speech.


TLDR: The title "Anti-Roma Sentiment" is justified by Reliable sources relating to each incident. Including only the personal opinions of Attila Lakatos is giving undue weight, makes neutrality impossible, and is designed to legitimise racist points of view.

Boynamedsue (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B.

Anti-Roma sentiment and controversies
Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments.[1] The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma.[39] According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open.[3] A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.[40]

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident.[5][6][7][8] This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime".[6][7][8][5] According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma.[9] The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups.[6][7][8][5] The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes.[8][3][10] Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon:

"Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable."[41]

Members of mainstream Hungarian political parties have been accused nationally and internationally of having racist anti-Roma views and positions according to the prevailing standards in the EU.[17][42][43] The police chief of Miskolc, Albert Pásztor who was dismissed from his position and reassigned to another one after being accused of making anti-Roma statements, then reinstated following protests, was selected as joint mayoral candidate for the Hungarian Social Democrats and Democratic Coalition in 2014.[44] He declared that some type of crimes are only commited by Roma people and when challenged reiterated his views and claimed they were summarized from the local police reports. As the keeping of ethnic crime statistics contravenes Hungarian law, a representative from the Alliance of Free Democrats enquired as to whether Pásztor had compiled a private archive of crime statistics. Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime.[45][46]

In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer,[47][48] who wrote:

"a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method."

[17]

However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics initially strongly criticised the statement, but later defended Bayer, suggesting that Bayer's comments were not his genuine opinion.[17] Fidesz communications chief Máté Kocsis was even more supportive of Bayer, saying critics of Bayer's article were "siding with" Roma murderers, even though nobody had been murdered in the attack to which Bayer had referred.[29] Later Bayer declared his words were taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, but denied racial discrimination and reinforced he wish to segregate from the society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper.[17] Afterwards, Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description.[49]

In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other." Jeszenszky claimed these declarations, which he claimed to be based on wikipedia, were not racist, and he received support from the Hungarian foreign ministry. Due to these comments, the Norwegian Institute of Holocaust and Religious Minorities asked Jeszenszky not to attend its International Wallenberg Symposium event.[17]

Explanation by Proponent
  • Differences: there are more differences, than the user presented above (e.g. wikilink to Jeszenszky, or other changes as well), I am very sorry the respresentation starts immediately in an imprecise way, nevertheless the reactions to that representation:
  • DIFF 1 - Obviously the Pásztor and Bayer cases are controversial as well, since they were not motivated by racism, but they referred to specific subroups of criminals dealing with social issues, as an existing phenomenon inside the community (as the user lacks of expertise knowledge in the subject, commited reccurently inaccurate or misleading edits in the past, which was needed to be repaired/amended all the time)
  • DIFF2 - the user repeats mostly the already refuted views, the Romas elect in their community voivodes , the suggestion to link it to any party is an obsessive part, despite other invidual opinions are three-times more are really connected to a party which surprisingly does not bother the user, etc.
    • 1. grammatical mistakes - if exist - may easily be corrected. As well, any copyedit may be performed, the statement is clearly understandble (what see now is again a new desperate n+1 invention against it, boring)
    • 2. Nope, the source is an RS, as well approved by other editor, and the source exactly from that region the the issue and phenomenon exist, on first hand, so as well WP:WEIGHT does not play here (the user adamantly tried to pursie erronous assertions for removal, finally an admin had to intervene end enlight him/her)
    • 3. As already mentioned above, the source is valid, after having added so many individual and one-sided opinions, he/she opposes any other addition because of personal dislike, just beucase different from those he/she added...that's all about WP:BALANCE, indeed what we would have here would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV, which in fact have been the general problem of the user's additions, WP:OWN is not an option (both versions constitute nearly 90% of the user's sole additions)
  • DIFF 3 - There is a source that is the main voice of the opposition media, the greatest nationwide conglomerate, which among other individual opinions considered this as highly relevant (funnily the user first tried to argue it as it would be a pro-goverment media, which was quicly refuted, so new arguments had to be invented...). It is spuriously stated that it would be quoted, it is a misleading statement (alarming from now on) it is mentioned along with the other opninons, which the RS consider relevant, so WP:UNDUE does not play here, we've seen again a false assertion based on a false premise. Furthermore, the next statement is amazingly incorrect, since the only aim is WP:NPOV, which the user recurrently ignored, it cannot have connection to any legitimization by nature (the user possibly do not understand the meaning of the word, any declared statement of an individual has no legal affiliation, neither the one who comment on it).
  • TDLR: The title "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" is justified by reliable sources relating to each incident, since the user added by itself controversial issues to the article under the same section, we don't ignore parts of the sources we don't like. As well not just Lakatos's statements are included, but other personal opinions which the user added by itself (!), so WP:FALSEBALANCE would only play if it would be ignored since we don't only represent one-sided views per WP:NPOV, as well it cannot legitimise (oh..again) racist POV, since the subject who opined is member of the Roma minority, so it is a complete BOOMERANG, as well and ardent example of WP:JDL and WP:OWN.

C.

(Neither of the above. No additional subsection.)

Survey

  • Version A is my preference (as proposer). The title "Anti-Roma Sentiment" is justified by Reliable sources relating to each incident. Including only the personal opinions of Attila Lakatos is giving undue weight, makes neutrality impossible, and is designed to legitimise racist points of view. More detailed justifications can be found above. My second preference is Version B, as it at least details the extent of Anti-Roma sentiment, albeit in a biased way. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B, as explained (as proposer), full inclusion, without the violation of NPOV and several other guidelines, without the elimination of important parts of the full picture on spurious grounds. The title "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" is justified by reliable sources relating to each controversial incident, since the section contains both of them. The continous misleading allegations of the content are disappointing, nonsense, since not just Lakatos's statements are included, but other personal opinions, the opposite would be neutrally impossible, if we would just represent one-sided statements. As well it cannot legitimise (oh..again and again :D) racist POV, since the subject who opined is member of the Roma minority. The situation is evident, a clear case study how far some may go in order identify something as a bias, in fact the opposite is true. Boring. Second preference version C.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Version A per Boynamedsue - Idealigic (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version A, while not great, is still the best:
    • Currently most of the proposed text is under the "Violence against Roma" section which makes no sense, so an "Anti-Roma sentiment" section will be an improvement (although IMO the better approach would be to focus that section on academic knowledge about popular sentiment, and put the quotes / controversies in a separate section, "Public discourse" or "Political discourse" or something like that).
    • The proposed addition of the Lakatos quote is bordeline disinformation. This is a Roma politician (arguably an important one, but there are dozens of others of similar importance, and several who are quite more significant) making a talking point that's convenient to a political ally, being elevated into "the voice of the Roma people". Also note how vague that talking point is. This is important because...
    • "Gypsy crime", which would very much deserve a more thorough treatment, is based in this kind of fuzzyness. "Gypsy crime" is a rhetorical device that was at the center of then-ascendant far-right party Jobbik's narrative that the Roma are violent criminals and a danger to all the peaceful country folk, and they are the only ones who can cut through all the political correctness and restore peace and order. (As the Bayer quote shows, this narrative was later appropriated by Fidesz, when it was swapping places on the political palette with Jobbik.) "Gypsy crime" is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy: Roma were overrepresented in petty crime but somewhat underrepresented in violent crime (although I think the social sciences mainstream attributes both to demographic circumstances unrelated to ethnicity); Jobbik public figures tied the phrase "gypsy crime" to violent incidents like Olaszliszka, and when challenged, they pointed at studies documenting Roma participating at higher rates in minor property theft and such. Lakatos was feeding this misrepresentation, which should not be included in the article unchallenged.
    • Lakatos is of course being cherry-picked here because his comment fits the far-right narrative, but without that POV, it wasn't particularly important. It didn't have much of a media reaction (outside of the far right blogosphere), and he wasn't a particularly prominent politician at the time - if one wanted to quote one prominent Roma politician as some kind of representative, then (aside from how little sense that makes - you wouldn't quote a French politician as the representative of French people, right?) that would be either Csaba Kállai, the national head Roma Voivode at the time (who said something along the lines that perpetrators need to be punished, but not one should be held responsible for other people's crimes just because they are of the same ethnicity - source), or Orbán Kolompár, then president of the National Gypsy Council (who said that Olaszliszka was "not a Roma issue" - ruins of the source here, the newspaper has since been extinguished by the government).
    • I don't have strong feelings about the inclusion of the Bayer quote, but there you can at least argue that he is the most prominent pro-government journalist in Hungary and his comment was well outside the Overton window and resulted in lots of media reactions, even on the international level; and that the government's refusal to condemn it in any way was somewhat indicitive of their political calculations on anti-Roma sentiment. --Tgr (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are spot on in many of your points. I certainly agree that there could be improvements to Version A. For me this RfC is about removing Lakatos to enable further progress. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the right way to include Lakatos would be to have a section about the concept of "gypsy crime" (which, even as a propaganda contruct, is fairly notable, it pretty much determined public discourse about the Roma in the 2000s; on huwiki it even has its own article), and describe the far-right's POV there (explicitly labeled as such). The above comment by Lakatos has been a major reference point within that POV so IMO it's reasonable to mention it in the article, as long as the context is explained. --Tgr (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Guglielmo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "European Public Opinion Three Decades After the Fall of Communism — 6. Minority groups". Pew Research Center. 14 October 2019.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Cite error: The named reference IRBC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Bernat, Anna; et al. (2013). "The Roots of radicalism and anti-Roma Attitudes on the Far Right". Tarki.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Feischmidt, Margit; Szombati, Kristof; Szuhay, Peter (2014). Collective criminalization of the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe (In the Routledge Handbook of Criminology). Routledge. ISBN 9781136185496. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Vidra, Zsuszanna; Fox, Jon. "The Rise of the Extreme Right in Hungary and the Roma Question: The radicalization of media discourse" (PDF). Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Vidra, Z; Fox, J (2014). "Mainstreaming of Racist Anti-Roma Discourses in Hungary". Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies. 12 (34): 437–455. doi:10.1080/15562948.2014.914265. S2CID 144859547.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Cite error: The named reference AI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c d Feischmidt 2014, p. 173.
  10. ^ a b c d O'Rorke, Bernard (2019). "Hungary: A timeline of killings, terror and collective punishment" (PDF). European Roma Rights Review (Winter): 13. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
  11. ^ Paula, Kennedy. "Hungarians return awards over 'racist' journalist". BBC. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  12. ^ "Award for 'racist' journalist in Hungary sparks protests". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  13. ^ Paula, Kennedy. "Hungarians return awards over 'racist' journalist". BBC. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  14. ^ "Award for 'racist' journalist in Hungary sparks protests". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  15. ^ Paula, Kennedy. "Hungarians return awards over 'racist' journalist". BBC. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  16. ^ "Award for 'racist' journalist in Hungary sparks protests". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  17. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k O'Rorke, Bernard. "10 Things they said about Roma in Hungary". European Roma Rights Centre. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  18. ^ "European Public Opinion Three Decades After the Fall of Communism — 6. Minority groups". Pew Research Center. 14 October 2019.
  19. ^ Bernat, Anna; et al. (2013). "The Roots of radicalism and anti-Roma Attitudes on the Far Right". Tarki.
  20. ^ Szabados, Gábor (16 September 2008). "Interjú Lakatos Attila vajdával". boon.hu. Borsod Online.
  21. ^ "Farkas Flórián nem foglalkozik Bayer Zsolt kizárásával". atv.hu. ATV Zrt. 11 January 2013.
  22. ^ "European Public Opinion Three Decades After the Fall of Communism — 6. Minority groups". Pew Research Center. 14 October 2019.
  23. ^ Bernat, Anna; et al. (2013). "The Roots of radicalism and anti-Roma Attitudes on the Far Right". Tarki.
  24. ^ "Hungary: Hundreds protest governing party over anti-Romani commentary". Romove on-line. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  25. ^ Bhabha, Jacqueline; Matache, Margarita. "Anti-Roma hatred on the streets of Budapest". EU Observer. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  26. ^ Toth, Csaba (7 July 2014). "MSZP and DK support candidacy of controversial former police chief for Miskolc mayor". The Budapest Beacon. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
  27. ^ uthor credit"Draskovics: erkölcsi döntés volt a miskolci rendőrkapitány áthelyezése". mti.hu. MTI. 31 January 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-02-03.
  28. ^ "Leváltották a cigányozó rendőrkapitányt". index.hu. INDEX. 30 January 2009.
  29. ^ a b c Der Spiegel. Blurring Boundaries: Hungarian Leader Adopts Policies of Far-Right
  30. ^ Paula, Kennedy. "Hungarians return awards over 'racist' journalist". BBC. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  31. ^ "Award for 'racist' journalist in Hungary sparks protests". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  32. ^ "Bayer's anti-Roma rant draws fire". Hungarian Media Monitor. Center for Media and Communication Studies-University of Budapest. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  33. ^ "Anger grows in Hungary over anti-Roma article". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  34. ^ Ram, Melanie H. (2014). "Europeanized Hypocrisy: Roma Inclusion and Exclusion in Central and Eastern Europe". Journal on Minority Issues and Ethnopolitics in Europe. 13 (3): 15–44. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  35. ^ Ram, Melanie H. (2014). "Europeanized Hypocrisy: Roma Inclusion and Exclusion in Central and Eastern Europe". Journal on Minority Issues and Ethnopolitics in Europe. 13 (3): 15–44. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  36. ^ "Farkas Flórián nem foglalkozik Bayer Zsolt kizárásával". atv.hu. ATV Zrt. 11 January 2013.
  37. ^ Bogdan, Maria; Dunajeva, Jekatyerina; Junghaus, Tímea; Kóczé, Angéla; Rövid, Márton; Rostas ̧, Iulius; Ryder, Andrew; Szilvási, Marek; Taba, Marius. "Nothing about us without us: Roma participation in policy making and knowledge production- Chapter 1 "Introduction"" (PDF). Sussex Research Online. European Roma Rights Centre. p. 3. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  38. ^ Nagy-Iulius Rostás, Beata (2013). "A Note on Roma Mental Health and The Statement By Geza Jeszenszky" (PDF). Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 4 (2): 89–97. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  39. ^ "European Public Opinion Three Decades After the Fall of Communism — 6. Minority groups". Pew Research Center. 14 October 2019.
  40. ^ Bernat, Anna; et al. (2013). "The Roots of radicalism and anti-Roma Attitudes on the Far Right". Tarki.
  41. ^ Szabados, Gábor (16 September 2008). "Interjú Lakatos Attila vajdával". boon.hu. Borsod Online.
  42. ^ "Hungary: Hundreds protest governing party over anti-Romani commentary". Romove on-line. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  43. ^ Bhabha, Jacqueline; Matache, Margarita. "Anti-Roma hatred on the streets of Budapest". EU Observer. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  44. ^ Toth, Csaba (7 July 2014). "MSZP and DK support candidacy of controversial former police chief for Miskolc mayor". The Budapest Beacon. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
  45. ^ uthor credit"Draskovics: erkölcsi döntés volt a miskolci rendőrkapitány áthelyezése". mti.hu. MTI. 31 January 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-02-03.
  46. ^ "Leváltották a cigányozó rendőrkapitányt". index.hu. INDEX. 30 January 2009.
  47. ^ Paula, Kennedy. "Hungarians return awards over 'racist' journalist". BBC. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  48. ^ "Award for 'racist' journalist in Hungary sparks protests". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  49. ^ "Farkas Flórián nem foglalkozik Bayer Zsolt kizárásával". atv.hu. ATV Zrt. 11 January 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romani_people_in_Hungary&oldid=1012051782"