Talk:Hungary

Wow, okay, this page needed serious restructuring. I'm a leftist, and *I* find this article ridiculously fawning and just advertisement for MSZP. A drastic rewrite was needed. Also, some broken sentences and excessive snark revamped. I realise that RationalWiki likes to be snarky, but this article was just embarrassing. It has been enhanced quite a bit. Here's what I changed:

Since almost all of this page was about the political parties, I decided to fix up that part, detailing Fidesz' dubious moves but also presenting a more, well, rational view of the other parties.

However, I also decided to add a brief summary of Hungary's history so that this article could plausibly be titled "Hungary" instead of "List of the political parties of Hungary". I'd suggest moving the parties to a separate page/s, but I'm not sure if Hungary is relevant enough for the readerbase to do that - someone else can go ahead if they want.

Also, some rather nonsensical and/or unhelpful sentences were taken out.

What I typed up is mostly raw text with little additional formatting beyond breaking it up into paragraphs. Anyone is free to enhance the article to make it less dull or anything.

80.99.58.245 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and delete the part about Horthy being a dictator who subjugated the country to Hitler. While it could be construed that it is technically correct, he was conducting secret negotiations with the allies who kept delaying their promise for a mediterranean landing. Instead of that we got D-day. There is also the historical fact that the Nazis had to effectively invade the country and force horthy to resign at machinegun point while extorting him for the life of his son, before deportations could start. At this point armed battallions were already occupying the capital. The general hatred for Horthy came from the subsequent communist regime who were outlawed along with the arrowcrossers during horthy's governance. --84.3.181.153 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Orban is an enemy of liberal democracy.
And I think this article should say so. Zionist Goy (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you're free to think that but you need to provide rational reasons for that before it can be reflected in an actual article.84.3.181.153 (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

84.3.181.153’s contributions last year
BoN 84.3.181.153 made a series of edits in February 2017 that reek of slightly downplayed Orban apologetics of the “We’re just being persecuted by the nasty European lefty meanies”-variety. It also uses the standard obfuscation employed by Fidesz in finding some parallels between individual illiberal moves by Orban and some laws in some other European country, ignoring that while some similar elements may be found in some other countries, no other EU country has instituted the entire plethora of illiberal anti democratic measures found in Hungary, hence no other EU country experiences a similar “cocktail effect” of: In short, I think those BoN bits in particular could use some work.ScepticWombat (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Politicised courts
 * A constitution that changes whenever Orban finds it convenient
 * Gerrymandering
 * Government-influenced media
 * Persecution/prosecution of NGOs and
 * Conspiracy theory rhetoric from the head of state (with more than a hint of antisemitism, yeah it’s all George Soros’s fault, riiight).
 * Oh, and BoN gets extra points off for this nugget of slanted historically apologetics ”After the Habsburgs started a whole lot of fighting they weren't ready for and dragged the militarily not independent Hungary into it”, followed by a not too subtle piece of apologetics vis-a-vis Hungarian irredentism (read: Hungary was totally blameless in relation to WWI and Hungarian irredentism was solely/mainly the fault of the WWI victors and the neighbouring countries).
 * Also, the claim that just as many died during the Nazi and Soviet occupations is either wrong or misleading. It’s wrong if you include Hungarian Holocaust victims (which alone more than the already ) and misleading if you selectively look only at the relatively brief Nazi occupation in isolation. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Obvious Orbán-slant
Starting with the second paragraph in the Fidesz section, whoever was the writer, has a very obvious Fidesz-leaning slant, not to mention it is downplaying many of the proved accusations re: the restructuring of most of the media (currently 80% of all media in hungary is in Fidesz/government controlled, mostly including local newspapers, the public tv networks, the second largest commercial tv network, etc.) mishandling of eu funds (the eu's OLAF agency filed numerous complaints, most recently and infamously the "ELIOS" scandal), etc. Not to mention, the entire Politics section is really outdated. I'll plan to rewrite it soon enough and put it up for review.

--Kobalt (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Done some of it. I would much appreciate comments and criticism on the added text. I plan to write up more later in the future --Kobalt (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Nice work making a good start of revising the clear pro Orbán slant in the article that is mainly due to a series of BoN edits (see my section just above) that no one has yet done much about.


 * Your edits led me to finally get around to go over the history section, which was also bore the mark of this pro Orbán BoN’s writing (portraying Hungarian history as a poor innocent victim and clearly in favour of Hungarian irredentism).


 * I hope you and others will continue to check up on the article and revise it where necessary. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)