Talk:Viktor Orbán

Untitled

PanARMENIAN.Net - Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan convened an extraordinary meeting of diplomatic representatives of the countries and international organizations accredited to Yerevan following the extradition by Hungary and further pardon by the Azerbaijani leader of Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan’s killer Ramil Safarov. Addressing the meeting participants, President Sargsyan described Hungary’s act as unforgivable and declared that Yerevan severs diplomatic relations with Budapest. "We have been closely following all the developments around that criminal. This issue has been discussed during each and every meeting with the President, Speaker of the Parliament, Foreign Minister and Ambassador of Hungary, and we have been assured on numerous occasions that such a transfer or a return of a criminal to Azerbaijan was excluded. We have received that same response to our requests during our contacts just a few days ago with the representatives of the Hungarian Foreign Ministry and Parliament. But as a result of perfidious developments the murderer has turned up in Baku and got released," President Sargsyan said. "With their joint actions the authorities of Hungary and Azerbaijan have opened the door for the recurrence of such crimes. With this decision they convey a clear message to the butchers. The slaughterers hereafter are well aware of impunity they can enjoy for the murder driven by ethnic or religious hatred," he said. "I officially announce that as of today we suspend diplomatic relations and all official contacts with Hungary.We expect a precise and unambiguous response by all our partners with regard to this incident.Anyone who tolerates this, will tomorrow be held responsible to history," the President concluded.

stupid (Viktor Orban) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.171.176 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi everyone,

A couple of things on the article. By the way whoever did it, congratulations on the job well done.

1. "Orban is a deeply religious Protestant". It should be "Orbán is Protestant" for the sake of NPOW: nowhere it said or written in public media that he would be deeply religious, and certainly did not act on it while in office.
2. "Fidesz, which was transformed from a liberal party ... into a right-wing party". Should say "transformed ... into "centre-right liberal conservative", since both in rethoric and action Fidesz is more accurately described this way. Also, it is the term used on the "Fidesz" page.
3. "collapse of the national right in 1994". If this is in referrance to the MDF, "national right" also doesn't quite cut it, "conservative Christian democrat" would be more appropriate as it is phrased on the "MDF" page.
4. I'm not sure about the last one. When it talks about the status law, should it be mentioned that all countries opposing the status law have exact or very similar laws in place for a long time now (all 7 neighboring countries for the support of their minorities living in Hungary). This should be fairly important for balance.

Sorry for the long post.

milfor

Just a comment. Certainly fides means faith in latin, but the name of the party is more to do with the intials of: Alliance of Young Democrats.

"Faith" as the translation of fides (from a dictionary of foreign words) was advertised in their own first campaign at the beginning of the 90s. Adam78 12:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Sure 2. Let's talk about this further on the Fidesz talk page (and could you link the quote from Fidesz site, please) 3. it's a shortcut. There are two main sides in Hungary: left and right, but these labels are a little bit obscure: "right" wants to stop privatisation, nationalise some services, etc., while "left" uses neo-liberal rhetorics many times. 4. This is a very sensitive political issue -- mentioning it or not mentioning it. Let's keep the page for now as is, I think. --Sicboy 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-he-heally now? He is Protestant? I thought he was a good Catholic schoolboy. Well, what do I know, right? Anyway, I think the term "liberal conservative" is fair enough as long as you explain that the party is socially conservative but economically liberal. --PistolPower 17:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE to The background of the political career of Mr. Orban

Political analysts believe that the speeches of Mr. Orban in 1989, and also the foundation of the Federation of Young Democrats was due to the conspiration of the communist friends, Mr. Horvath and Mr. Pozsgay, for extending their power even after the democratic changes in Hungary. Recently it is also widespread believed that Mr. Orban was an intelligence agent of the Horvath-Pozsgay ruling communist team against the democratic opposition "SZDSZ" (Allience of Free Democrats) during the transition process from the communist dictatorship to democracy in Hungary.

Lol...who are these political analysts man? Cite it properly, sources, names etc. unless what you say doesn't count as a factually supported note. I could easily think you may have just made it out yourself...

Also this is true for the whole article on Viktor Orbán. There are CLAIMS, mostly based on OPINIONS that are masked as facts and truth. No way can it count as valid. Moreover, the referential material is not cited properly, with proper links and the like, and I couldn't actually find the relevant parts in them.

So: Find REAL sources and POWERFUL ones, or else I will find it hard to believe what you have just scribbled here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.83.51 (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE (DO NOT DELETE)

User with IP 80.98.233.132 is from Budapest, Hungary, node name catv-5062e984.catv.broadband.hu, (Chello Broadband), Network: UPC Magyarorszag Kft. Cable installed, cable internet... Budapest confirmed.

-To do: Find out location, get pictures of the place, possible target list...

Hey, he only added that his opponents think OV is xenophobic. Twice. We had vandals removing half of the Hungary page and replacing it with advertisement/propaganda, and we could stay calm and the vandals disappeared. Minekutána fegyverrajongó vagy, a végén még valaki komolyan veszi, hogy megfenyegetted egy darab szóért, és még neked lehet bajod :), tehát: nyugi. --Sicboy 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

New revision about Political Career

Hey. User:Revolutionary here. Please tell me if I've done something wrong with the new section, "Prime Minister of Hungary". I'm sorry if I've botched up the "Life after Government" section, but this is my fault for not having enough resources now.

Oh, and please, someone tell me how to spell this Istvan Csurka fellow's name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.204.212.105 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

POV cleanup

I'm going to perform a POV cleanup on the article, as I found it biased.

Such statements as: "the opposition largely remained at sixes and sevens, unable to attract political support in light of Fidesz's overwhelmingly professional political communication campaign." (stating the cause for lack of support as the opponent's communication is highly misleading, since we cannot know the reason why voters decided to favor one party more. The communication argument seems to be false though, since Fidesz did not and does not have the support of most of the media).

"Governments in adjacent states, particularly Romania, were insulted by the so-called status law, which they saw as a direct interference in their domestic affairs." (It should be noted that many neighbouring nations, like Slovakia, Ukraine or Serbia have such similar laws)

"The patriotic propaganda of the conservative government led by Fidesz–Hungarian Civic Party stirred emotions among both its supporters and its opponents andcaused an unprecedented cultural-political division in the country." (We cannot state as a fact what caused the division, because both sides claim the other had caused it. Personally I seem to recall a quite mild campaign from Fidesz, because they were leading the polls by as much as 10% before the 2002 elections)

"For their part, MIEP and Fidesz challenged the government's legitimacy, demanded a recount, complained of election fraud, and generally kept the country in election mode until the October municipal elections." (This is actually a blatant lie. Orban accepted the defeat at election night and Fidesz didn't demand a recount. They did complain about election fraud, but nothing as substantial to significantly influence the outcome of the elections. Lumping together MIEP with Fidesz is like equating a moderate republican with Ann Coulter)

"As the Medgyessy government inherited an economy on the downturn, the slowdown was generated by (among other things) excessive state spending during his predecessor's tenure." (This is absolutely incorrect. Even the left-leaning Economist admits that Orbán had run the economy well.)

"He was also lambasted by opponents for an arrogant communication style, alleged fiscal mismanagement (pointing to the 2000 two-year budget and perceived failure to cut the budget deficit), damaging scandals during his government, excessive negative campaigning against the opposition and nationalism (but his supporters see him as a patriot). He was also accused of neglecting the troubled relations between Hungary and Romania.

Fidesz has been confused in its attemps to consolidate its right wing positioning with populist left-wing propaganda. This lack of clear direction cost Orbán the election in 2006." (I do not think that these allegations should be left there by themselves, they either should be completely removed or expanded with the supporters' take on the issue.)

Please, do not claim things without reference or without adding whose _opinion_ you're claiming, because it might seem that they are facts when they are only opinions.

Comments are welcome. A beautiful mind 14:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What I heard

Under the caption of Fidesz, I found: "It was founded in 1988, named simply Fidesz (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége, Alliance of Young Democrats), originally as a youthful libertarian party against communism" Nothing about fides, as a latin word.

When Fidesz and Orbán Viktor turned away from liberalism to join christian conservatism, they changed the party name. Fidesz now has no official resolution as a shorthand, the party is called "Fidesz - Alliance of Hungarian Citizens". Since their christian-conservative agenda is more popular with older voters, they no longer want the "young dems" reference in their name.

The original idea for the Fidesz name came in 1987 supposedly, from the post-WWII italian neorealism movie Bicycle Thieves. In one scene the protagonists are searching for the namesake stolen bicycle and one says to the other: "Look at the trade mark, the one bike branded Fides we must find." When Orbán and his fellows decided on this name for the new party, the "Alliance of Young Democrats" phrase was back-invented to resolve Fi.de.sz as a short-hand. At least that was what a founding Fidesz member told me about the origin of their party name. 213.178.114.82 19:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Orban in the media section added

I have added an "Viktor Orbán in the media" section (domestic-pro-gov, domestic-anti-gov, domestic-extreme-right, foreign press). Since current hungarian political landscape is so antagonistic and divided by massive trenches, it is virtually impossible to make a well-referenced section on this topic. I tried to depict what someone who listens to lot of radio, reads lot of net, reads several papers finds in all. I spent significant time to compose it, make it better if you wish, but deleting it would be stupid since the topic exists and is very worthy of description. Modern politics is highly media-oriented, especially in Huhgary it is decisive, since democracy is only 16 years old and all magyar people are "genetically receptive" to antagonization (cannot say it any milder). We call this unfortunate phenomenon "turáni átok" or "the curse of Turan". Media has huge responsibility in how people perceive domestic politics.

Ummm...Beg your pardon? Would you be so kind as to restrain yourself speaking in the name of all hungarians? Certain people you know, unlike you, do not really believe in curses and they just do not call it "the curse of Turan", for example because they have a funny feeling that sentences like this: ,,all magyar people are "genetically receptive" to antagonization" are arrogant and does not make any sense. In my humble opinion, your interpretation of hungarian politics is offensive, biased and relatively stupid. But your opinion is just as important as any others' and always welcome, while you are not talking in the name of people who never gave you the authority to do so. Thank you--178.48.50.144 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be considered that conservative media has limited distribution in Hungary due to regulatory and market realities. The only two over-the-air nationwide commercial TV channels TV2 and RTLKLUB are both pro-gov (liberal), having thanked their long licence extension to the reigning gov't coalition (RTLklub has the famed Orbán-Fidesz-mocking "Heti Hetes" talkshow, TV2 intellectually anti-Fidesz, less active). State-run on-air MTV1 is well, state-run,,they did not even show themselves being besieged and torched by mob after the famed Gyurcsany-speech of late Sept 2006. State-run but patriotic and minority oriented DunaTV is statellite/CATV only, thus having limited distribution. Same for HirTV, the hyperactive on-site news channel of the right-wing opposition. The MSZP has its own CATV station called ATV, which tries to counter HirTV, but carries studio talk instead of on-site news. Any porn channel is legal here and unlimitedly available on CATV, satellite or net. This entire situation will not change until digital TV kills analog TV (about 2009-2012).

State radio station Kossuth is mixed, more right-wing than liberal, but few listen to it anyhow. Overwhelmingly huge daily newspaper Nepszabadsag (NOL) is braindead pro-govt. Right-wing daily Magyar Nemzet (MNO) has problems with finding market funds to compete with NOL (which has color print), due to frequent fascism allegations. The very influential weekly HVG had the top boss editior replaced spring 2006 (allegedly to aid in MSZP-SZDSZ election campaign) and HVG is now serviantly pro-govt. Both HVG and NOL are owned by foreign firms with strong european liberal links.

Far-right media exists mostly on the net, they simply do not have funds to print or air anything.

All in all, it is much easier to say "Dirty Viktor Orban!" and have it heard nationwide then praise him. 213.178.114.82 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of whisper talk going on in Hungary that Viktor Orbán is an ethnic gypsy and his birth family name was Orsós. This would make him de facto excluded from hungarian politics, due to prejudice against the gipsy people (of which sorrowfully a lot is fact-based, since the gipsy do not adapt to a market economy society). Anyhow, MSZP supporters and some commercial radios are quite keen on saying "dirty Viktor Orsós" on suitable occasion. I found this issue too low to include in the article. 213.178.114.82 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This sentence does not make much sense to me. "In far right-wing media, Viktor Orbán often earns criticism for not doing enough to uproot the remnants of communism from Hungarian politics (i.e. he did not supplant the MSZP party while Prime Minister). " What was he supposed to do, ban the Socialist Party? Gsandi 12:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost exactly. In fact the czech republic made a law after their "velvet revolution" to ban former communist party top brass from holding public offices in the new democratic republic for some 10 or 15 years. The hungarian far right expected that Orban will institute the same law in Hungary, so people like Gyula Horn (who actively participated in the military branch of secret communist state police in 1957-1959, yet became PM between 1994-1998) or Gyorgy Bolgar (journalist who unconditionally licked the rear of communist gov't before 1989 and now publishes anti-conservative hysteria in big daily paper Nepszabadsag) could be forcibly removed from hungarian politics.

It is the dream of hungarian political right, that the MSZP be destroyed and replaced with a social-democrat party and nothing further-left-wing should exist in the domestic political palette. Sorrowfully a true social-democrat party was not formed in Hungary after 1989, even though this political stance was very successful before WWII. 195.70.32.136 16:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reedited the Orbán Viktor in Media section. It formerly contained material which could only be disputed in context with the general perception of reality of the writer, in the comprehensionless denial of e.g. effect causing nature of the Liberal Party, which can simply be shown in the constitutional modification of the abolition of the regular army with the establishing of a sole professional army, and the Constitutional modification of local goverment elections to one where mayors are elected directly and in which the whole election take only one turn. Political commentators said they didn't get the confidence of the people to form the first government of the republic because they represented too radical program and pace. I agree with that that that party's policies become insensitive and extreme-capitalist of larger immediate profit which generates in time so large opposition in the society that sooner or later it is removed by force. Their current 1% shows where dismantling the guarantee of minimum level of existence, and transpassability of social hierarchy by trying to eliminate state distribution of wealth in the matters of health care and higher education reflects their narcissistic cynism. The comment on the legitimacy of the governing parties was solely the oppinion of the writer, which did not even cite sources, which is not surprising as an analytic mentality instead of a reality-hating histerical one is necessary for that, and the inserted sources by me show how perfectly it could be found by that mentality. Far-right ideology of the source is not reinstated, as it simply disregards the fact that three kinds of people were former Workers' party members: those who believed in socialism, these were the smallest fraction, those who disregarded the system and only wanted to advance in the society to become somebody, and those who entered it first to achieve technical results, then when they gradually got the possibility to dismantle the state-socialism, they did it under the disguise of propaganda of technical modifications. Consequently the idiot demand for punishing everyone who was on that party's list is a disregard to the human achievments of more than the third of those scientists, academy members, sociologists, and others, who didn't only lack the possibility to fully realise their goals before the system change but couldn't even say what they represented openly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by N.11.6 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Now that Orbán became PM of Hungary, I think this article should be improved to a much better quality. The current "media" section is a frustrated anti-Orbán text being far from neutral. I think that whole section should be cut out. It mentions many historically unimportant trivia and pure nonsense, and is much too long compared to its relevance. Qorilla (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree! The "Orbán in the media" section is a piece of biased garbage. The last garbled sentence doesn't even make any sense. Much more work should be put into this article! 87.194.167.167 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Added Oct 2010: It needs far more than a mere "cleanup"! For instance the critical change of Fidesz's politics, led by OV, from left-liberal to right wing Christian nationalist, is only mentioned in passing. This alone deserves its own section.

Then there is the amazing black hole where the 2006 election should be (again, this is only mentioned in passing). The ego battle between Orbán and Dávid, the loss of an election many thought Fidesz would win easily, the bizarre stand of OV when he said vote for me, but I won't become prime minister, and then the final destruction of MDF, to give Fidesz complete dominance of the centre-right in Hungary. These are all critical periods in OV's passage from young democrat to PM with dictatorial powers, yet they are not mentioned!

The way OV and Fidesz chose to behave between 2006 and 2010 - walking out whenever the MSZP PM rose to speak, the overwhelming anti-MSZP 'lies and Commies' propaganda campaign, etc - also needs a section of its own, as this period, and Fidesz's behaviour during it, effectively created the 'new' VO who is now such a powerful PM of Hungary.

In fact this article, as good as the early sections are, is so lacking in information about critical times in OV's career that it really should have one of those Wikepedia 'Only a stub' warnings on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.152.49 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing or mere Conservative politician?

Majority of foreign media in the world and opposition in Hungary refer to Victor Orban as populist right-wing politician. And not without reason. It is so because of his way of governing. I would say that his government sometimes seems to be a ultra right-wing one. However, I see that this could be biased. Therefore the term "right-wing" is the most accurate one. That's how we can describe his policies such as:

• enactment of the new constitution based on the principle of belonging to Hungarian nation rather than citizenship,
• introduction of the restrictive media law,
• restraining the powers of the Hungarian Constitutional Court which undermines the rule of law.User:18hangar18

• - uncited and unsigned - discussion is where you post here and you allow discussion not where you post some uncited claim here and then you revert again - stop reverting and start discussing. Present your case with WP:RS here and allow users the opportunity to discuss and investigate. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Victor Orban is a right-wing politician Should you want to prove otherwise then give some relevant arguments supported by valid citations.

• Opening the citations for investigation Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/hungary-one-party-rule - this one does refer to him as "As a rightwing populist" - but its a "commentisfree" opinionated editorial and not a WP:RS to label a living person as such. Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/populist-premier--set-for-defeat-in--hungarian-election-657824.html - This one refers to his as "Hungary's populist Prime Minister, Viktor Orban" and says that, "as leader of Fidesz, he embarked upon rebrand-ing what had been a radical liberal party as a Christian conservative group," - they do not refer to him as a right wing politician at all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/hung-a26.shtml - this is a Socialist website and as such clearly opinionated in any way they describe anyone. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As he is leader of what is described as a Centre right conservative party Fidesz - I am not certain we should be describing its leader as right wing - it stands to reason that he is also a cenre right conservative. I would like to get some more opinions from editors that are well informed on the differences. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot ask some other editors what they think, because they are just laymen and not political scientists. What they say can be just their opinion. However, we need facts, not opinions, in order to describe Victor Orban. That is why everybody who wants to describe Victor Orban as centre-right conservative politician has to support it with relevant citations otherwise it is just his opinion. 18hangar18 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

edits

1. The paragraphs in the section "Viktor Orbán in the media" are pure original research. Most of it is unsourced. The only references given, do not support the text before them. In biographies of living persons, the principle of verifiability is even more important than elsewhere. OR (possibly harmful) is strictly forbidden and must be avoided at any rate.
2. Orbán's political position is subject to heavy discussions. The references in the first sentence do not support "centre-right". I believe they have been inserted to support "populist" or something, and then someone has changed the text, without changing the sources. As it is controversial, we can simply avoid the "centre-right" or "right-wing" question in the lead section. "Conservative" is relatively uncontroversial and already implies a position right of centre.
3. World Socialist Web Site is a Trotzkyist portal and absolutely not a reliable source to verify the political position of anyone, especially not a living person

I hope that you can understand my edits now. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

redirection?

1. The section "Viktor Orbán in the media" is dealing not only with the person of Mr. Orbán, but with the new Hungarian constitution. If this section will be expanded with further reactions of international organisations, we should consider redirection to the constitution of Hungary

--Ltbuni (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's highly relevant to both, and appears in both. Stevan Harnad 14:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk)

Content on constitution amendment

The content on the recent constitution amendment is overtly long and much too detailed for this article. This article has to describe Orbán and his biography in a balanced way and not focus on some aspects, especially not slant towards recent news (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM). This has to be summarized and shortened significantly. This article is about the person Viktor Orbán and his life, and not about the latest constitution change. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Transfer

• Maybe we should "transfer" some of the content of this article to the Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán. This latter one only contains the "criticism of the constitution".

• Are there two Kim Lane Scheppeles? In the "Fourth amendment of the 2011 Constitution" section there is a sentence: "Criticism is coming from KLS (first place) ... and KLS (last place).Someone should fix it.

Oppinion?

Ltbuni (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am responsible for these long texts (media law, EU presidency etc.), but then I did not yet create the article of Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Was Viktor Orbán a leader of the Communist Youth Organisation?

There have been 3 attempts in the past week to insert a peace of info about his alleged/potential/suspected early carrier in the Communist Youth Organisation. As far as I know, it is a constant and unproved accusation - raised by Hungarian Socialists and Liberals - to smear him. I'd like to invite the editors concerned to shed light on this issue. If they got documents to prove their point, we eagerly extend the article. --Ltbuni (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the book of József Debreczeni (who currently holds deputy chairman of the oppositional Democratic Coalition) Orbán was a secretary of the KISZ in his high school. So, he definitely was not a prominent leader. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Could You please share the page number? I'd like to check it --195.228.150.67 (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I found in the book of dr Péter Kende (very hostile to Mr. Orbán) that Mr Orbán was a secretary of his secondary school. (page 11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It is unimportant whether Dr Kende likes Mr Orban or not. The question is: is it a reliable source? --RJFF (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Orban explicitly deny having held a position in KISZ or does he just not mention it? If he explicitly denies it, the article should take this into account ("According to J. Debereceni and P. Kende .... Orban himself denies ....") --RJFF (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Debreczeni or Kende write, in which year Orban (purportedly) was a KISZ secretary? If yes, we should mention it in the article to show that there was quite some time between Orban's (potential) involvement in KISZ and the start of his activities in Fidesz. Otherwise it looks like he just switched from a communist organisation to a strongly anti-communist one which would seem rather incomprehensible. If he dropped out of KISZ in, say, 1981 and became a Fidesz activist in 1988, one could imagine that he gradually turned away from the communist system during these years (which would not seem too improbable). --RJFF (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Debreczeni or Kende write anything in explanation of his development from an (allegedly) active KISZ member to a Fidesz founder? --RJFF (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Kende's book ( A Viktor) can be read online, anyone can Google it. I don't think he is a reliable source - it is self-published, biased, focusing only on the negative side of Mr. Orbán's personality, we don't know where he got the key info, no footnotes, and given the fact that Mr. Kende is a political opponent of Mr. Orbán, it is likely that it does not meet the standards of reliability. Reading the book, it sounds like a gossip, that Orbán was KISZ-leader. I haven't read the whole text, but the parts I know gave me the impression, that it is a kind of libel / smear campaign against the PM - that is why I did not add it to the sources section. But, on the other hand, Mr. Debreceni's book, The prime minister (A miniszterelnök, 2002) was based on the interviews with Mr. Orbán, and according to Norden1990, it contains the questioned data, and I have the same memories. The book, "A miniszterelnök", has a short preface written by Mr. Orbán himself, in which he says, that the only deficiency of the work of Mr. Debreceni is that it focuses only on the politician Viktor Orbán, not on the average man, but basically it is OK. Given the fact, that we got at least two different books - one written by an opponent and one written by a "fan" (Mr. Debreceni did not cross floor till 2009-2010) - claiming the same, I think it should be in the Wikipedia. I am still looking for the page number of Mr Debreceni's book. Mr. Orbán's "conviction", if he previously had had any, was changed because of the brutality/stupidity of his superiors, while serving his national service in the Hungarian People's Army.

--Ltbuni (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Debreczeni was never been a "fan" of Orbán, for example he also wrote a book about another PM Ferenc Gyurcsány. I'll look into that Orbán was a KISZ secretary in his high school (and definitely was not a national leader of the organization) or not. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---This is off topic, but according to the Hungarian Wikipedia, Mr. Debreceni supported Orbán till 2004-2005, was his personal advisor between 1994-1996. He was a right-wing politician as well. He wrote his book in 2002. The point is that if two writers (Kende and Debreceni of 2002), with such different political opinions, give us the same info, we should accept that as true --Ltbuni (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, we could accept these sources as reliable, but it is not appropriate that this information should be included in the introduction, as Orbán was a KISZ member only during his school years. I don't think that this is a significant chapter in his political career. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong about the title of Mr. Debreceni's book. The above mentioned one, written in 2002, dealing with Mr. Orbán has the following title: "Orbán Viktor" (Printed in: Budapest, by: Osiris, in 2002). Sorry.--Ltbuni (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I found another written source for his KISZ-leadership. Árpád Pünkösti, in his book, Szeplőtelen fogantatás, writes the following (Sorry, I write this in Hungarian for those - probably Hungarian - users who can't help "upgrading" this article with his Communist past): "Elsőben és másodikban OV alapszervezeti KISZ-titkár volt. Büszke volt rá, hogy felvették a KISZ-be, hogy Kilián-próbát tett, de amikor napirendre került, hogy reformokra lenne szükség, jobban kellene csinálni az egészet, azok között volt, akik komolyan vették a változtatást is... A nagy KISZ-ezésben végül új alapszervezetet akartak létrehozni. A névadó nem Kun Béla lett volna, hanem Hermann javaslatára az első magyar anarchista, a szabadságharcos Kászonyi Dániel. Ez már nem ment. Ekkor az alsósokkal is összefogva Hermann, Incze Zsolt és OV elhatározta, hogy a diákparlamentre igazi értékelést készítenek a KISZ-életéről. Felosztották a munkát és a maga területén mindenki vizsgálódott, közvélemény-kutatásfélét is végzett, aztán a küldöttgyűlésn kipakoltak. A párttitkár állítólag ezt súgta az igazgató fülébe: ez provokáció, ezek minket akarnak kicsinálni! A KISZ-patronáló tanárnő sírt: botrány majd mosolyszünet." Árpád Pünkösti: Szeplőtelen fogantatás, pp. 138-139. Népszbadság Könyvek (!!!!) 2005. The book is reliable: based on interviews, documents, sources are indicated, therefor they can be checked. Árpád Pünkösti is a journalist, sociologist, has an own wiki-article in Hungarian .

Concerning the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter and Mr. Harnad: The Viktor Orbán article has a sub-section, dealing with the international criticism of the Fourth Amendment - according to the Canadian-Hungarian Democratic Charter and Mr. Harnad's "Democracy in Hungary" sub-section, they have a leading role in this criticism, so I felt that is appropriate to add them to the See Also section. But I don't insist. --Ltbuni (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Does either of the biographers write something about Orban's development from a communist youth member/secretary to an anti-communist activist? The article would gain if it included something about his early political development and influence. At the moment, it focusses too strongly and too detailedly on his time as party leader and prime minister while it has only scarce information about his youth and early career. --RJFF (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it, but it may take a while... --Ltbuni (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How he became an anti-communist

We have 3 sources: I. Árpád Pünkösti

Pünkösti writes that in 1979, when VO was 17, with his 9 friends he formed some kind of study-circle: they listened to the Free Europe Radio, they had discussion on hot topics, such as the Soviet invasion of Afganisthan. He met in the circle Lajos Simicska, and Zsolt Incze who were openly against the Communist regime, The circle got busted, someone revealed their activity, but the teachers did not punish them. But this whole thing was very exciting to them. Viktor Orbán himself said that: "those boys said such things against the regime, against the Communism, that I almost dropped my teeth. They were sceptical about everything. Within 6 months, I became the opposite I had been previously. (p. 142.) VO was admitted to the University of ELTE, but first he had to do his national service in Zalaegerszeg - he found it humiliating, aggressive and senseless - he became radical there: once he hit an officer (145); in a protest against the inhuman treatment of the recruits he shaved off his head hair (147). In 1982, the Hungarian Communist Secret Police, (Section III/III) tempted him into collaboration, but he did not become a snitcher (149).

II. Kende is basically the same.

III. Debreceni: I don't know what he wrote, I don't have the book. Anyone? Norden1990? --Ltbuni (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Debreczeni, his political view changed when he joined the army in his youth (as honvéd). --Norden1990 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is he Jewish?

A year ago, a French newspaper (Les Echos) claimed that he had said that, he is partly Jewish.

http://www.lesechos.fr/18/01/2012/LesEchos/21104-036-ECH_viktor-orban--l-infrequentable.htm

Hungarian newspapers later claimed, that it was wrong, and the Les Echos promised to fix their article:

http://hungariandigest.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/french-paper-orban-is-jewish/

But despite the promise of the Les Echos, they did not correct the article. Could anyone provide us with reliable source? --Ltbuni (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Orbán administration acknowledges Hungary responsibility in the holocaust and appologies

Considering that Fidesz and Orbán himself is oftenly accused for supporting or at least tolerating antisemitism, this is significant information, especially since this is the first time a hungarian government is doing so. Unfortunately, I only have german language sources for this (Hungarian Voice, Die Welt)SüsüASárkány (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation problem

Hello all;

I feel this is a pretty important page considering the Hungarian political climate. Orban is probably the most important figure of 21st century Hungary, so it'd probably be best not to have half the article blocked off as "copyright violation". Why is this there and how can we solve this? The same problem is witnessed on the page about the recent elections in Hungary. KFan II (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, KFan II. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Copyright concerns related to your project for background on why these two articles are blanked. The problem with this page can be solved by rewriting the infringing text on a new page, according to the instructions on the template. (Follow the link next to the text "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material.") An administrator will then double-check that the rewrite is OK, copy it over the infringing material, and excise the infringing material from the page history.

Unfortunately, these two articles aren't the only ones affected by the copyright problems; there are probably hundreds more. If you have time, please consider visiting Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Norden1990 to help with the cleanup. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to edits interested in this area for the setback. Unfortunately, it is not a simple matter to clean out copyright infringements of this type. I hope that you will help reconstruct this section with new content that complies with our copyright and non free content policies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

After the restoration of the content out of process, it has been revision deleted to help ward against further return. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

misleading

"According to him, a new way of Hungarian state organisation, following the era of liberal state – respecting the values of Christianity, freedom and human rights, – can make Hungary competitive again. Within days, numerous western media outlets, international leaders, academics, and foreign policy experts condemned Orban for his statements and called upon the EU and NATO to address Orbán's alarming statements"

I think this is just missing the point. All the media criticism about the speech was not Mr Orban's views on liberalism, but on the fact that he identified China, Russia and Turkey as examples to follow. --K0zka (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

He did not identify those countries as examples to follow. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? In what sense did he mention the countries above? --K0zka (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He stated, for instance: "the most popular topic in thinking today is trying to understand how systems that are not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies and perhaps not even democracies, can nevertheless make their nations successful. The stars of the international analysts today are Singapore, China, India, Russia and Turkey. ... the 2010 elections, and especially in the light of the 2014 election victory, can safely be interpreted as meaning that in the great global race that is underway to create the most competitive state, Hungary’s citizens are expecting Hungary’s leaders to find, formulate and forge a new method of Hungarian state organisation that, following the liberal state and the era of liberal democracy and while of course respecting the values of Christianity, freedom and human rights, can again make the Hungarian community competitive and which adheres to and completes the unfinished tasks and unperformed duties that I have just listed. ... And so in this sense the new state that we are constructing in Hungary is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state. It does not reject the fundamental principles of liberalism such as freedom, and I could list a few more, but it does not make this ideology the central element of state organisation, but instead includes a different, special, national approach." [1] Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's fill the gaps: "The stars of the international analysts today are Singapore, China, India, Russia and Turkey. And I think that our political community recognized and touched on this challenge correctly several years ago and perhaps also succeeded in processing it intellectually, and if I think back on what we have done over the past four years and what we will be doing during the upcoming four years, then things can indeed be interpreted from this perspective." - Out of this, my understanding is that Hungary is already following the example of these countries and that is the plan for the years coming. The interpretation is of course everyone's own business but from the media-reaction I would say that this is a common and widespread interpretation of what Mr Orban said. --K0zka (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, when he writes of a Hungary which will not reject the fundamental principles of liberalism, he obviously wants to follow countries he described as not liberal democracies. All the same, please read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Our own interpretation is not relevant in this debate, and we should present all relevant POVs. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand those WP principles, please come up with your suggestion on how you would put it. My point is that there is something important missing from the quoted part of the article. It reads as if Hungary was criticized for building on values of Christianity, freedom etc. --K0zka (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section reads like a platform for supporters

The controversy section of this article reads objectionably like a platform for Orban supporters. Most of the section takes the form, "His critics say x, but actually not-x" I think the same basic information should be presented there, but it should be worded less tendentiously: "His critics say x. However, his supporters say/point out y. Some critics later retracted their claims."68.63.148.22 (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Both side must be presented, but I do not think the pro-Orban side is given a more weight in the article. How would you put it? --K0zka (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

OCCRP

Hergilei, I am sure that the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project is a highly respectable independent civil organization, as it is proven by the geographical scope of its activities (Eastern Europe, Central America, Caucasus and Central Asia which suggest that these are the regions where corruption and organized crime exist in our world). Nevertheless, I think that its recent nominations do not meet the criteria Wikipedia:Notability (events), especially if we also take into account Wikipedia:Recentism. Borsoka (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Recentism states:

"Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in: Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus." Notability states: "Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." I haven't created an article for the topic but added a single sentence. The OCCRP is notable given that it's a large group of journalists. A single sentence does not overburden the Orban article. Hergilei (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hergilei, thank you for your answer. I agree that you did not create an article, but added an information on a very recent event, although we cannot still decide whether this is an important information or not. The information is that he was nominated, but he did not receive anything. Should we also include information of Mr Orban's plans of openning new factories or building new stadium? I highly respect that obviously spontaneous civil group of Central American, Eastern European, Central Asian journalists who are ready to fight against corruption and organized crime without the assistance of their Italian, North American, Brasilian, Chinese, South African, ... etc. fellows, but I am not sure that their nomination is notable enough to include it in this article. Borsoka (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "spontaneous" group. It's been around since 2006 and has received awards for its work. Did all the other sources cited in Orban's Wiki page receive "assistance" from everywhere else in the world? Why are individual journalists/commentators more important than a large group of journalists? Hergilei (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hergilei, I tend to agree that it cannot be a spontaneous group, it must have been organized to fight against corruption and organized crime in specific regions of the world. However, my concern is not the history of that highly interesting group of obviously independent journalists, but the notability of a piece of information: should we include a pure nomination in the article? I think we should not. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "pure nomination." He was voted in the top three. Hergilei (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A pure nomination. (Actually, I am surprised that he was not voted as the winner, taking into account the obvious independent nature of this spontaneous and autonomous assosiation of Central American, Central Asian and Eastern European journalists.) Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep going on about "obvious independent", "spontaneous", and "autonomous"? If you think they're not, then say it directly and provide your sources. I continue to believe Orban being voted in the top three of the OCCRP Person of the Year should not be censored but it seems Orban has hired people to edit Wikipedia for him. Hergilei (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"it seems Orban has hired people to edit Wikipedia for him." No comment...--Ltbuni (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's simple enough to look at your editing history, [[2]]. You have repeatedly censored criticism of Orban. 14:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hergilei, please avoid expressions like "censoring" when writing of co-editors. Any negative information on the Hungarian PM can be added if it is based on at least one reliable source and it is notable to be included. That nomination is not notable. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So what would you call repeatedly deleting negative criticism? I provided a reliable source for Orban being voted a runner-up, not simple nominee, by a large group of international journalists. That's no less notable than the claims of "orbanophobia" and other incidents mentioned in his Wiki article. Hergilei (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't miss my Hungarian edits:https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1lis:Szerkeszt%C5%91_k%C3%B6zrem%C5%B1k%C3%B6d%C3%A9sei/Ltbuni

--Ltbuni (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hergilei, please try to imagine a world where people are not driven by their love or hate for Mr O. Sorry, I think that his nomination is not a notable piece of information to be included in this article. If you think that there are other pieces of information which do not meet the notability criterium, please do not hesitate to delete them, as per WP:Bold. Actually, I am sure that this article should be improved. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Recentism

I suggest that politically driven statements about a PM are not so important that we should present them in a WP article. If the leader of the opposition accused the British, French, German, ... PM or Minister of Finance or Minister of Foreign affairs, or ... of stupidity should we soon include his/her POV in the relevant article? Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks more like a mass-delete to me. Why is the Tavares-report (2013) recentism? --K0zka (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tavares-report: a leftist MP makes a report about a non-leftist and non-liberal PM which is passed by the leftist-liberal majority of the parliament. I think this is a typically politically driven report. We should wait some more time before referring to it, because we do not know whether it was an important event or only an attempt by some clever Hungarian politicians and professional political activists to advertise themselves to receive some more funds from their naive Western European comrades. Borsoka (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone has an own opinion and that is good, but the fact is that the report was accepted by the European Parliament, regardless of the motivation behind it, that alone makes it notable. However, I have to agree that the section of the article was not neutral. (e.g. citing népszava as source, hard to give credit to that source... and basically only Hungarian online newspapers as source) --K0zka (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sincerely, I think that Tavares's report is not notable. The very fact that only newspapers wrote of it (and, as far as I can remember, only for 2 or 3 days) suggests that it was the part of a (financial ? or political ?) marketing campaign. Even Hungarian politicians of the opposition failed to refer to it in Hungary (which, I think, is not a surprise). I suggest that we also should wait some time before mentioning it. Of course, if I am wrong and there are academic or scholarly works which refer to it, we also should mention it. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, you deleted the whole section about Tusnádfürdő speech, that is not recent and got very big media-coverage. --K0zka (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting it. I agree with you. We know that his Tusnádfürdő speech and its reception are important events. Borsoka (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Expansion

Hi. I'm expanding a section in Orbán's page, specifically, the section that details his second term. There is a note on the main page that reads "this section requires expansion." I don't want to remove that without consent, but when I finish expanding the section, I hope someone can take it down if it is seemingly long enough. Thanks.AndersenLjundberg (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)User:AndersenLjundberg 15 May 2015 6:53 PM EDT.

Final para of Viktor Orbán#

This para reads:

The most stormy incidents happened in 2001. That April Magyar Hírlap made public a letter written by a reader that stated, "the killing of Orbán would do good to our nation". Also that month on TV channel RTL Klub, reporter Tamás Frei[60] interviewed a Russian hitman, asking him for how much money he would kill the Hungarian prime minister (then Orbán). Right-wingers thought it was a provocative question. Later it turned out that the interviewed person wasn't a real hitman, but an actor paid by Frei.[61] After this scandal, RTL Klub apologised to Orbán, and the Luxembourgian owners of the channel began an inquiry. Frei subsequently lost his job.

I am unsure how notatble a readers letter really is or a staged stunt by a reporter. Perhaps people with more familiarity with Hungarian politics could weigh in here but I would think that this para should be deleted. GregKaye 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This Paragraph Should Be Deleted

I nominate the following paragraph for deletion:

"Some[who?] consider[citation needed] the election of Dr. László Sólyom as the new President of Hungary to be the supernumerary fulcrum of the party. Sólyom was endorsed by Védegylet, an NGO consisting of people from the whole political spectrum. Sólyom's activity does not entirely overlap with the conservative ideals and he championed for elements of both political wings with a selective, but conscious choice of values.[35]"

It is nearly unintelligible in the context of a biographical Wikipedia article. Others have already noted its formal deficiencies. It is empty of all substance. The only citation in it links to a non-English website. From Google translate the best I can infer is that the citation is an opinion piece. PS: I do not know how the 3 footnotes below were inserted into my comment. I have nothing to do with them. Da5id403 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Elections

I know that the general elections in Hungary can give rise to heated debates, driven by emotions, but I think we should insist on the facts and especially on WP:NPOV. Instead of writing of Orbán's "hate" campaign against Soros, or Soros's "hate" campaign against Orbán, we could write of campaigns. Similarly, we should not write of investigations against Orbán, if he is not subject to any investigations. Of course, we could mention that a company which is connected to his son-in-law is suspected to commit financial crimes if we can verify this statement by a reference to reliable sources. Sincerely, I would not regard newspapers reliable sources for this purpose, because they are obviously biased against or towards Orbán, so they can be described as primary sources that demonstrat the views of the (voluntary or paid) supporters or opponents of Orbán. Borsoka (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Speculation, innuendo, POV, OR

The following (hidden in the article for now) two excerpts are examples of speculation, innuendo, POV and OR, which I believe should be removed from the article:Quis separabit? 20:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

1) <blockquote>Fidesz former economic director and a powerful media oligarch, [[Lajos Simicska]], stated on 8 March 2015 that he might have been an informer for the communist secret service. Although thousands of files pertaining to secret service agents were destroyed by the communist government, Simicska speculated that Russia might have extensive copies of Hungarian secret service documents containing Orbán's records which it might have used to blackmail him into cooperation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://budapestbeacon.com/politics/simicska-viktor-orban-may-have-been-a-communist-informer/20480|title=Simicska: Viktor Orbán may have been a communist informer|work=The Budapest Beacon|author=Csaba Tóth|accessdate=12 April 2018}}</ref> Orbán rejected these allegations as "absurd and ridiculous", and recounted that he was accused of being an informant many times previously, and all these allegations had been false.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/11499564/Viktor-Orban-denies-being-communist-informer-during-days-of-one-party-state-in-Hungary.html|title=Viktor Orban denies being communist informer during days of one-party state in Hungary|work=The Telegraph|author=Matthew Day|accessdate=12 April 2018}}</ref></blockquote>

and

2) <blockquote>In February 2018, ''[[The New York Times]]'' editorialized that Orbán's "Hungary is now considered a democracy in sharp, worrisome decline. Through legislative fiat and force of will, Mr. Orban has transformed the country into a political greenhouse for an odd kind of soft autocracy, combining crony capitalism and far-right rhetoric with a single-party political culture."<ref name=":0"/></blockquote>

References

I agree with removing both of these paragraphs, per Rms125a@hotmail.com's reasoning, in addition to UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Article needs expansion/reorganization

This article -- specifically the "Second term as Prime Minister (2010–present)" section -- needs to be expanded and reorganized. For example, only the first six paragraphs of the section actually discuss Orban's actions during his second tenure as PM, and they provide very little detail. There has been a lot of discussion about the actions Orban has taken as PM, so I think we could easily expand this section and add more detail. We should also split the section up into sub-sections for each area of policy being discussed.

Also, the bottom six paragraphs of the section (which give a lot more information) should be split into a separate "Public image and views" section, as they really have nothing to do about what he actually did as PM but about his political philosophy/orientation. The section about his tenure as PM should just stick to what he did as PM. Overall, I think this article should be modeled after an article like David Cameron or another PM/President article. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree. There is a reliable and academic monograph about his second cabinet. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

@Amanda Portman:, I highly appreciate your attempt to provide a summary of the main points of Orbán's critics, because it could be an important part of this article. My first concern is that you applied highly biased sources. Yes, Orbán regards Soros as one of his principal opponents, and Soros also regards Orbán as a main opponent of his political purposes. You can easily find articles in Soros owned NYT (and other media financed by him) describing Orbán as a Nazi or an anti-Semitic politician, while rightist media in Hungary often imply that Soros as a psychopath. I think we should not regard these articles reliable sources. My second concern is that you inserted pieces of information in the article which are not verified by the cited source. For instance, Mészáros is not described as the "richest man in Hungary in all time". You may not know, but Hungary was established more than a 1,000 years ago, while Forbes started to publish its list of the richest Hungarians only about 20 years ago. Finally, I assume you do not understand Hungarian. "Orbán egy geci" is actually a rude statement, but it is also ambivalent. For instance, I am quite happy that our prime minister is "geci", because only a "geci" person can govern a small country in a "geci" world. I would like to ask you to slightly modify the text and try to find less biased sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka:, I also appreciate you would like to discuss the modifications. I see your point about "the richest man of all time". We can’t even compare his fortune to another fortune from the middle age as the life, in general, was too different from today’s life. I will improve that sentence when I have time unless you would like to. Regarding the NYT, let’s ignore what I think of the newspaper or George Soros. With that link, I didn’t want to discuss or support whether Orbán is a Nazi or not. That cite was only to support that several People’s Party members stated that Orbán/Fidesz should be removed from the party. I don’t mind if we use another cite(s) for this fact. Amanda Portman

I removed the info -- in addition to violating WP:UNDUE, the sourcing and wording was very poor. Some of the content also likely violates WP:COATRACK. In short, this info should be improved, refocused, and condensed before re-adding. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The "Soros owned NYT"? Are you joking, or just ignorant? 207.98.196.125 (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong information

It is written that "In 1989, Orbán received a scholarship from the Soros Foundation". The issue is that this foundation was created on April 1993... This page is full of lies anyway.

Bias removal required

There is a serious flaw in the introduction, in the part "Hungary has experienced democratic backsliding, shifting towards authoritarianism". This is a subjective statement, and should - if it deserves to stand - read "Hungary is said to have". In any case the sources are the NYT, Washington Post and The Economist, all of which are anti-Orban papers. I tried to correct it but somebody undid it, saying that the sources are 'reliable'. It sticks out like a sore thumb. 183.83.137.243 (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

WaPo, NYT and The Economist are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. If you think they are anti-Orban then provide reliable sources that support your claim and start a discussion in reliable sources notice board.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This question is not about the reliability of the sources. Its about neutrality. Can we present journalists' PoV as fact? Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question, regardless of being a source an RS, a kind of "political-aimed journalism" may lead to very strange and non-factual descriptions that as well likely to be presented and sourced especially in politic realted articles by some. It's a pity you did not take part of a similar discussion in an other article a while ago, though I invited you. Maybe currently regarding very strange POV statements, we could put in front according to x media outlet if noone knowns something better yet...(KIENGIR (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC))

Neutrality is the rule for editors but NOT for Reliable sources. see WP:BIASED the rule is: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Rjensen (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Rjensen},

yes, I would stress on sometimes. Though the cited rule as well contains my proposal likely to use according to, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC))

Fake information

2020 by elections are NOT SUSPENDED Bandasaka (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

They are still suspended, quite logically. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Trump of hungary" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trump of hungary. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Trump of hungary until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

category

Paleontologist99,

he did not promote that theory as such namely, and anyway would not make him a conspiracy theorist.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC))

cat again

Fenetrejones,

no that category is especially contains far-right/extreme viewholders, regarding the traditional Hungarian nationalism, which is not part of this subject, hence no consensus for addition.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

Orbán hailed as a national hero the nazi collaborator Endre Franko

User Norden1990 just removed[3] this part: "In January 2021, Orbán hailed as a national hero Endre Franko, a pilot who served in the Hungarian division "Pumas" under the command of Nazi Germany during World War II, who fought against Soviet and US airforce."[4]
How this could be this "irrelevant"?--Mhorg (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This completely irrelevant. Endre Frankó was a Hungarian pilot, who fought in the WW2. Yes, Hungary was an ally of Germany during that time, but this does not mean that all Hungarian soldiers meets the criteria of category "Nazi collaborator". Instead, a number of other cases could be brought up as criticism of Orbán's system: nepotism, corruption, business oligarchs, state capture, homophobia, lack of freedom of speech, democratic backsliding. The commemoration of a fighter pilot is not significant at all. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The Times wrote about the "pilot who flew under Nazi German", so it is clearly a warning about the rehabilitation of collaborators from Orbán government. Clearly due.--Mhorg (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The Times is clearly wrong. Frankó belonged to the 101st Home Air Defence Fighter Wing ("Puma"), an elite division of the Hungarian Air Force. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, The Times is correct, Operation Margarethe happened in March 1944, and the "Puma" was created in the spring of 1944, so under Nazi occupation.--Mhorg (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't educate me on Hungarian history. Puma indeed was established after the Nazi occupation, but Frankó himself already served in the Air force prior to that. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he was a pilot before the Nazi occupation, but after he served as a collaborator of the Nazi Germany, since Hungary was occupied.--Mhorg (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPADE applies here. There's an official term for "soldiers who served in the military of countries that just happened to be allied with Germany during World War II". They're called NAZIS. Although I'm aware of wikipedia's reputation among World War II historians for this sort of euphemisation. 46.97.170.152 (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Historians will be the first to tell you that this is not the meaning of the word. Unless you have reliable sources, you will gain no traction with your opinion here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to add this simply on the principle of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK. It would be UNDUE detail on one event (and a negative one at that, on a BLP). Is there a more suitable article for this? This might go in an article about Orban's politics and stuff, if there is a source which establishes this in a wider context - otherwise it is likely, as I said, NOTNEWS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Mhorg it is probably better to create an article Historical revisionism of Fidesz and put it there. Plenty of sources exist:[5][6][7][8][9][10] (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Good idea. Thank you for it. However, I would prefer Historical revisionism in Hungary as the proposed article's name. Yes, prominent FIDESZ theoretics are also prominent representatives of historical revisionism (and of nationalistic fringe theories as well), but FIDESZ is a much more complex phenonemon than a union of senile maniacs, immoral Russian spies and fatherless youngsters who are in search for their pseudo-macho identities. Furthermore, historical revisionism is not alien to other parties either. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• The sources explicitly refer to historical revisionism of the Fidesz government, under the Christian-conservative Orbán government... ‘future memories’ are being constructed and sustained by revisionist history writing, Hungary’s Fidesz government... has indulged in outrageous historical revisionism, etc. Perhaps Jobbik does the same thing but I don't think sources would support such an agnostic formulation when most sources explicitly name the political party and government responsible for revisionism. Admittedly, this feature does not distinguish the Fidesz goverment too much from most other nationalistic governments from Turkey to Estonia. (t · c) buidhe 06:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

FIDESZ is the governing party of Hungary, so the name that I proposed above does not contradict the cited sources. Limiting the scope of the article to the FIDESZ would suggest that historical revisionism is limited to the government or to its supporters, although it is not the case. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources say specifically that the Fidesz government engaged in historical revisionism, and are substantial, so that it's a notable topic meeting WP:GNG. If you allege that the opposition also conducts historical revisionism it would require reliable sources and probably a separate article, since it would be separate from the government's revisionist campaign. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What I try to say is that historical revisionism is not party specific and it has a wider context in Hungary. All the same, I am not an expert in this field. Borsoka (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Just one more remark, the titles of the articles you listed above, do not suggest that their authors think historical revisionism is a party specific phenomenon in Hungary. Perhaps we could accept their judgement. Borsoka (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that "Historical revisionism in Hungary" is better, as it can group several topics of the same theme. The section dedicated to Fidesz could be used as an internal section. Anyway, I would love to take care of it, but due to problems with the English language (and I'm not an expert in Hungarian history/politics) I can't take on such a big job. But I can help you by adding small phrases if you like.--Mhorg (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement of opinion in opening

One sentence in the opening is this:

Under his control it became the most centralized, most homogeneous and most disciplined party in Hungarian history.

Without good citations to back this up, it seems like someone's opinion. And superlatives are rarely anything more than qualitative TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The source says "Fidesz became the most centralized, most homogeneous and most disciplined party in the country", referring to Hungary during Orbán's leadership of the party, not the obviously tendentious "in Hungarian history", so I've edited it accordingly. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

I fully understand that Viktor Orbán is a controversial political figure and his actions are open to a wide range of interpretations and criticisms. I agree that we should present the typical accusations about him, however, I am against simply presenting the political opinions of one particular political side as facts. That would be against the neutrality principle of Wikipedia. Presenting the political opinions of cherry-picked biased "experts" would also violate neutrality. We should phrase the text in a way that it is acceptable for both the liberal and the conservative reader, irrespectively whether they like Mr. Orbán or not. Therefore, claims such as "causing a democratic backsliding" should be presented as accusations and not as facts (by the way: what would be the objective measure of this backsliding?). Moreover, this article is about VO and not about the Fidesz party which are not the same. This article should concentrate on VO. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Per this study, "Over the past decade, a scholarly consensus has emerged that that democracy in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is deteriorating (Kochenov 2008; Sedelmeier 2014), a trend often subsumed under the label “backsliding”... the new dynamics of backsliding are best illustrated by the one-time democratic front-runners Hungary and Poland"[11] This section[12] fleshes it out in detail. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

If you think we "should offer a way that it is acceptable for both the liberal and the conservative reader", you're totally starting from the wrong assumption. Neutrality on Wikipedia is something else, Wikipedia doesn't have to please its readers' opinions. There is academic consensus on democracy backsliding (which yes, has objective measure such as electoral integrity and fraud) in Hungary under Orban and this can be presented as fact. What is the evidence that these are "cherry-picked biased experts"? It looks like this is your (biased) opinion. The fact that Fidesz left the EPP is related to Orban because Orban's policies are the cause of the break with the EPP and Orban is the party leader. The dispute on the article's neutrality lays on a misconception of neutrality policy, hence I cannot support it. Lone Internaut (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a liberal academic consensus on democracy blacksliding, but this partial consensus could not be presented as a general approach. Even the interpretation of the term "democracy" is subject of debate. Orbán is often described as a "populist" politician because he mainly attempts to represent a majority approach. Pro-Orbanist scholars describe this as a clear sign of his democratic convinction, contrasting it with liberal politicians' unilateral "elitist" decisions. Borsoka (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are the pro-Urbanist scholars and can you point me to their peer-reviewed publications that dispute democratic backsliding in Hungary? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"Pro-Orbanist scholars" doesn't make them sound reliable and neutral at all. Reliable scholars are not pro or against Orban. Academic consensus being "liberal" must be proven being so, never heard of such a thing. The "liberal / conservative" thing looks just like a will to politicise academic consensus in this discussion. Interpretation of democracy is not subject to debate when it comes to democracy integrity: a law that criminalise or limits opposition is anti-democratic and there's no debate, nor supposed liberal bias, about this. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, laws criminalising or limiting opposition are anti-democratic. Yes, I am sure scholars who study politics are neutral like me when providing advice to my clients. Could you refer to our policy limiting our ability to cite biased scholars? How can you prove that a scholar is biased? For instance, if a scholar writes that Orbán is not anti-democratic is a clear sign that the scholar is biased? Borsoka (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

How can you prove that a scholar is biased?—Mate, it's you whom accused the academic consensus of being "liberal" (as such, biased), not me. I should ask you that question and implicitly I did. Reliable academic consensus doesn't work like that. I don't think it's politicized at all, especially when it comes to Orban. You say there are "Pro-Orbanist" scholars but being pro-Orban will hardly be considered neutral or reliable. Also, please let's see these scholars you talk about, their reliability, on what peer-reviewed publications or websites they wrote, their academic reputation. Because as of now all the source we have (at least 5) factually pointed that Orban caused democracy backsliding in Hungary and, besides you accusing them for whatever reason of being "biased liberals" (which is not enough) there is no debate about that and this dispute is pointless. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead section is completely neutral, in the international sphere, there is academic consensus that Orbán established a hybrid regime in the past ten years. Moreover, the introduction is even quite restrained: there is no mention of the theft of public funds and EU subsidies, the emerging oligarchic economic system, nepotism, the destruction of the scientific and cultural sphere (MTA, CEU, SZFE), etc. As a Hungarian editor, I can say there are no such "pro-Orbán scholars" in Hungary, but propaganda manufacturers and persons who disclose materials from the central ministry of propaganda (officially, Prime Minister's Cabinet Office) and they act as journalists in state-sponsored media (for instance, fake news portal Origo.hu). --Norden1990 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As an "anti-Orbán" citizen living in Hungary I can state that there are "pro-Orbán scholars" in Hungary, mainly employed by Századvég. Yes, they are state-sponsored, but they publish peer-reviewed books and articles. Furthermore, a number of "anti-Orbán" scholars received significant funds from previous governments to fabricate studies to explain the achievements of the same governments. Should we ignore them for this reason? I still have not read a reference to a policy prohibiting the use of books/articles written by biased scholars. Borsoka (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We should use sources as neutral as possible. The problem I see here is again "pro/anti Orban". If reliable neutral academic consensus says there's democracy backsliding under Orban why should we even take in consideration blatantly biased sources? We are not counterbalancing an opinion. Democracy backsliding in Hungary is a fact until proven the contrary, possible by reliable and not biased sources. The dispute is about the lead being non neutral: it already is neutral, what would make it non neutral would be citing biased opinions to counterbalance something that is basically a fact by academia. Lone Internaut (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I have the feeling that we might have different ideas about what neutrality means in WP. For example, according to WP:ASSERT, "When a statement is an opinion (e.g., a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion". As many of you seem to dislike VO (which I can understand), it would also be good to read WP:OPPONENT, e.g., "Writing for the opponent is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, even if you strongly disagree with it, and also giving it proper weight in the article relative to its significance. The concept is similar to that of playing the devil's advocate." About possible biased sources, the relevant guideline seems WP:BIASED that states: "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." What I am asking is to use WP:SUBSTANTIATE and instead of writing, e.g., that "VO is causing a democratic backsliding in Hungary" we should write that "According to X, VO is ...". About reliable sources: there is a great difference between reliability in various fields. It is not the same if a mathematician or physicist claims something than if it is stated by a politologist. A mathematical theorem is an objective fact, while the claim of a social scientist is more like an educated guess, it should be treated as an opinion (hence, we should attribute the claim to specific authors). It is especially true if the person talks about contemporary politics, since then it is very hard to get rid of ideological biases. All in all, political claims are not facts, for example as Borsoka highlighted, we could even debate about what democracy really is. Therefore, in my opinion WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Democracy integrity is not subject to interpretation. As I was saying, a law that criminalise or limits opposition is anti-democratic and there's no debate about this and things like these are the metrics on which experts formulate their claim on the matter. I do not think the academic consensus, in the sources we are using, is biased. You have to prove it is. You can't just claim "it is biased, because it is biased" or "it is biased because is not math stuff" or "it is biased because it is liberal". There is no dispute about Orban causing democracy backsliding. Let's quote WP:BIASED entirely: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.—The first part we already have it, the second part does not always applies and can depend on the subject (it says "sometimes"). Problem is there is no proof the sources we are using are biased and as such there is no need to use supposed pro-Orban biased scholars (we are still waiting to see those): there is nothing to counterbalance. This whole neutrality dispute is just politicising something that was not. We should just aim at full neutrality. As many of you seem to dislike VO—Again, why politicising the talk? Who cares what we like or not? I could say you seem to want to diminish Orban anti-democratic impact. If reliable sources would say Orban is not causing democracy backsliding I would have no problem in this. But neutral sources we have say he is doing it. So WP:OPPONENT does not apply, because I am not fighting personally against Orban (speaking just for myself), WP:SUBSTANTIATE does not apply because "biased statements" must be proven to be biased, which nor you or Borsoka yet did. Lone Internaut (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that it should not matter whether we like VO or not, we should be able to come up with a neutral formulation of the text. I do not agree that "Democracy integrity is not subject to interpretation." It certainly is, as even the concept of democracy is debatable, see for example, Democracy#Contemporary_theory. Moreover, as I highlighted earlier, biased sources can be used, as well, and in some sense (if we formulate the sentences neutrally) it should not matter. If we write "X claims Y" then it is a fact irrespectively whether X is biased or not. And that's the path we should follow. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is no proof the sources we are using are biased, then there is no need to counterbalance them with opposite biased sources. There are conditions to use biased sources that here are not met. As such, Orban causing democracy backsliding can be presented as a fact or, even if reworded, it must be clear that there is consensus about the fact he is causing democracy backsliding. We are still waiting to see these "pro-Orban" scholars. The talk has not moved in over a week, if there is no substantial further development by this Sunday, I say we can end the thing and remove the disclaimer as it lacks of standing. Lone Internaut (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not trying simplify what is clearly a complex issue, but in the vein of what Norden1990 (talk · contribs) said: many of the concerns voiced above might be dealt with by using more specific and less jargonic language. That would also put the discussion on a clearer footing, it's easier to source and it would have the added benefit of making it more digestible to the average reader. For instance, instead of using terms like "democratic backsliding" we could (and IMO should) explain what that means: e.g., clearly and succinctly describe the weakening of press freedom and independent media, the stacking of the judiciary, and the reorganization of election laws to favor Fidesz. There's little disagreement among reliable sources that these things have taken place, and that Orbán was one of their main architects. --Tserton (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks reasonable, Tserton. I'm not really against a rewording as long as it keeps intact the facts as they simply are. Let's see what others think about it. Lone Internaut (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I support using clearer and more specific wording to describe Orban's policies. Even if true, "democratic backsliding" and "shifting toward authoritarianism" are statements that invite claims of bias (regardless of how unsubstantiated) and disputes like this. Wording everything more clearly ("show, don't tell") will help solve this. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to using more precise wording, I suggest moving the "Anti-LGBT positions" sub-section into the "Second premiership (2010–present)" section. Assuming the former section focuses more on what Orban and his government have done regarding LGBT policy, as opposed to the reaction, it's more relevant to the "Second premiership" section than to "Criticism." --1990'sguy (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there's enough consensus about a rewording of the lead. Someone tried but I think that didn't turn out well. @Tserton, 1990'sguy, Norden1990, and Snooganssnoogans: anyone of you wanna try and see how that comes out? Lone Internaut (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I re-instated the edit and addressed the concerns you raised in your revert. I'm making now trying to streamline the lede and put in more precise and less jargonic language - everyone feel free to revert or edit my changes if you feel I'm going too far or not far enough. --Tserton (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty good Tserton. I support this. Let's see what other think about it. Lone Internaut (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

These edits are a good start, though I suggest going further. In the article body, it is a good idea to expound on Orban's exact policies, as it would help readers to know what "curtailing of press freedom, erosion of judicial independence and undermining of multiparty democracy" means in terms of specific policy actions. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, I agree, this can further enrich the article. Anyway I removed the POV banner as it was weak before and it's even more now. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Replacement" immigration rhetoric

Orbán has promoted the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Le Journal du Dimanche reported on Orbán's explicit adoption of the conspiracy theory, after he claimed; "if we let tens of millions of migrants travel to Europe from Africa and the Middle East... the young people of Western Europe will know the day when they will be in a minority in their own country".

There is no basis to characterize Orbán's rhetoric as promotion of a conspiracy theory. The Great Replacement conspiracy theory posits that there is a deliberate attempt by sociopolitical elites to minoritize white people and often gives various nefarious purposes as the motivation. Orbán was simply stating the inevitable demographic consequences of a liberal immigration policy (whatever liberals' motives may be for advocating such a policy), as seen in, say, the USA, and offering instead a restrictionist vision. Great Replacement rhetoric by definition must, at the very least, 1) blame the deliberate efforts of "elites" of some sort and 2) compare minoritization via immigration to ethnic cleansing, genocide, or something similar. Orbán does neither. Princeps linguae (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, he uses phrases of the "Great Replacement" theory ([13]). Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; I came here to fix the reference as the provided French language reference does not meet the conspiracy theory definition. The contradictory reference just detracts from the article so I'm going to replace it with some text from a 2018 speech that the Prime Minister's office published in English. Reve (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because he doesn't say the silent parts out loud doesn't mean he's not pushing the conspiracy theory. Before we even address whether the replacement is deliberate or not (which is actually something orbanist propaganda outlets can't stop hammering into people's heads), there's still the matter of whether such a replacement is actually happening through immigration (hint: it's NOT), or the implication that if such a replacement of the white population is indeed happening, it's somehow a bad thing (which is a white supremacist talking point) 46.97.170.152 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not in dispute that there has been democratic backsliding under Orban

The lead misleadingly makes it seem as if it's an opinion held by some that there has been democratic backsliding under Orban's tenure and that this is a contested opinion. Academic sources describe it as a consensus: "Over the past decade, a scholarly consensus has emerged that that democracy in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is deteriorating (Kochenov 2008; Sedelmeier 2014), a trend often subsumed under the label “backsliding”... the new dynamics of backsliding are best illustrated by the one-time democratic front-runners Hungary and Poland"[14] News outlets such as the NY Times even just straight-up describe Orban as "Hungary’s authoritarian leader". This section[15] fleshes out in detail why. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This wording (made by User:Tserton) is the result of discussions on this talk page (the "Neutrality") discussion above. Furthermore, the wording doesn't suggest "some." It suggests a widely-held view and doesn't mention or allude to opposing viewpoints. It's an accurate statement. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic

"Orbán has promoted the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Le Journal du Dimanche reported on Orbán's explicit adoption of the conspiracy theory, after he claimed; "if we let tens of millions of migrants travel to Europe from Africa and the Middle East... the young people of Western Europe will know the day when they will be in a minority in their own country".[155]"

That comment--"conspiracy theory"--consists solely of polemical editorializing. Besides, Lefties brag about inflicting "the Great Replacement" on white countries. It's only when their political enemies complain about it, that they smear it as a "conspiracy theory." 2603:7000:B23E:3056:F9D4:8FF:A168:BF8F (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname

In the first line of the article, the IPA transcription of his surname has the stress on the first syllable. But in the accompanying Wikimedia Commons audio file, the speaker places the stress on the second syllable. Which is correct? —⁠172.58.230.201 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Stress is always on the first syllable in Hungarian, including all names. The audio was probably recorded by a native speaker, but with bad intonation (common these days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2496:9A00:3012:13A1:DC3A:DBD1 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Article biased too much

The fact that the first opening paragraphs mention all the possible negatives with a slew of anti-Hungarian outlets while ignoring that, for example, Orban currently holds the highest approval rating for any head of government in the Western world, is too much bias. What is the reason this was removed from the top? Why are the first few paragraphs at the top dedicated to portraying him as evil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.112.125 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2022

Under "Criticism and Political Techniques, add the following.

Mixed-race/Nazi statements

In a speech delivered to the 31st Bálványos Summer Free University and Student Camp, Orbán expressed views that were later described as "a pure Nazi text" by his adviser, Zsuzsa Hegedus, in her letter of resignation. In the speech, Orbán stated that "Migration has split Europe in two – or I could say that it has split the West in two. One half is a world where European and non-European peoples live together. These countries are no longer nations: they are nothing more than a conglomeration of peoples." and "we are willing to mix with one another, but we do not want to become peoples of mixed-race.". The speech drew widespread condemnation from both the Romanian foreign ministry and other European leaders. Mastertigurius (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Thanks! Of the universe (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it wise to refer to Orban's speech as "Nazi statements" in wikivoice when the only real source on it are the statements of one ex employee? I'm okay with the characterization, because it's true, but we need better sources. 46.97.170.152 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that given the level of coverage, devoting a section / paragraph to it makes sense, but yes, we might want to reconsider the section header unless better sources can be found. --Aquillion (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If there's such a level of coverage then there should be no problem finding a more qualified authority describing Orban's words as "Nazi rethoric" (at last I hope there is). Hegedus is a former employee who was fired months before she "handed in her resignation", and her rapid retraction of her accusations two days after they were sensationalized by the media, indicates that her personal opinions should not be treated as carrying any serious weight.

As I stated above, I agree with the characterization, because it's obviously correct, which is why I'm hoping the characterization will be maintained and reinforced by voices with proper authority. 46.97.170.152 (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Watch out for misspepling

I think hungarians will edit this page multiple Tímea, but they are generally not very good in English (I'm a hungarian too), so edits made by them could contain misspelled words. Ayowhatsupp (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Case in point: You made a wrong word choice (Tímea is probably meant to be times) and 2 capitalization mistakes (Hungarian is a proper noun). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Also "misspepling". Nothing one can do about it. It's just Muphry's law.

Wikipedians will take care of misspellings anyway. BTW, Hungarians are not special there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Too long lead

The lead is ridiculously long. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's too long-winded rather than too long. It's full of trivia that belongs in the body of the article (like that he's the "first post-Cold War head of state in both eastern and central Europe who was not a member of a communist party during the Soviet-era") that distract from the main thrust of who Orbán is and why he's so controversial. If I were someone with no prior knowledge of him wondering what the big deal about this guy is, I wouldn't be all that much wiser after reading the lede. But large parts of the article also suffer from the same problems, especially the more recent information ("Second premiership" and "Public image"). There are too many disjointed factoids and rote lists of things he's done or said that make it a very difficult text to follow. I'm going to make some careful deletions from the lede, and tweak some of its poins to make them clearer. Everyone feel free to revert, but please do discuss here if you do! --Tserton (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Under the 'Irredentist and nativist aims' section Correct "instuitutions" to 'institutions' GenericUsername4 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Anti americanism seriously

Orban is authoritarian but i dont think he is anti america he supports hungary’s membership in nato that is not a position any anti american politician holds. he also in the foreign policy article is mentioned that he supports the former president of the usa that is not a position an anti-america politician holds 93.106.131.145 (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the FP source doesn't really support the "anti-american" label — in fact, I think in context it's clear that the article means he occasionally engages in anti-American rhetoric, rather than that anti-Americanism is part of his ideology. I think it's more accurate to say he belongs to the same broad authoritarian movement as a large part of the American right, and when they're in power (see 2017-21) Orbán starts to sound very pro-American. It's worth noting that the article was published in 2016 during the Obama administration, which was a lot less friendly to Orbán than the Trump administration. Here's the full relevant quote: "Over the summer, for instance, he declared that 'one of the principal supporters of the pressure imposed on Hungary related to immigration is the United States.' Orban believes unchecked migration will 'kill' Hungary. For some, like Simonyi, Orban’s anti-Americanism is but a cynical ploy that comes in handy in Hungary’s fractured political landscape ... but ultimately 'he respects America a great deal and understands, all in all, that a stronger relationship with America is a good thing.' Others suggest Orban needs an international scapegoat, and that the United States will fill this role so long as U.S. diplomats continue to criticize Hungary’s rollback of liberal democratic norms." --Tserton (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

LGBT and general leftism

We haven't dedicated any section on his criticism on general leftism and LGBT people Nlivataye (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

False news alert

Ignore this, it's debunked false news. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hungary-s-viktor-orban-flees-budapest-s-huge-anti-government-protest/ar-AA13joV2 2A00:23C7:91AB:BC01:F826:5B44:7238:8BA9 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)