Talk:Our Homeland Movement

Hungary Mid‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ip edit

Dear IP,

I have to inform you again, that your additions are fringe and does not comply with not just WP:NPOV, but they are in fact not true. If two party splits, i.e., it is because they have disagreements, you cannot just copy anything. Anyway the new party is under surveillance, I will be the first one to add i.e. Hungarian Turanism if I ever met such from the party in a notable level.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

representation

@KIENGIR: @Norden1990: @Netpartizán: @WolfmanFP: @Bencemac:

this edit-war makes no sense, that's why I was basically not to list it (which is not uncommon for small parties),

but it is apparently not accepted [1][2] Braganza (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was that really necessary to ping us? I even forgot about that issue. The party cannot form an official fraction with 3 members, that's true, but they are still represented in the National Assembly. WolfmanFP (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please undertsand they are represented as Independents., this is the official, formal way, so you cannot write by any means as the party would hold 3 seats.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

That’s the point: non-factions is not the same as non-party. German articles like Liberal Conservative Reformers or formerly The Blue Party list Independents as representation of the party Braganza (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A general consensus would be needed for this, because in Hungary without a fraction they are officially independents, the German laws may be different.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I can only talk about the situation in Austria and Germany; There are so-called "non-factions" which all include who do not belong to any faction or group Braganza (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungary independents are everybody who are not part of any fraction.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

sounds pretty similar Braganza (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Islam?

Mi Hazank does not appear to still be an anti-Islam party. Diplomats from Qatar and Turkey attended a recent party event, and from the podium, Toroczkai called for closer relations with the Gulf States and Turkey. I understand this is primarily in the context of foreign policy, but at the same event, it appears that he criticized the position taken by Geert Wilders on Islam, and not just purely on Wilders' support for Israel. The specific quote from the article translates as "In his view, Muslims should not be scolded so much", but maybe a Hungarian speaker can provide further clarification. In this way, the party seems to have distinguished itself from the anti-Islam stance, and shifted away from any past anti-Islam position. I would therefore recommend removal of the description of this party as anti-Islam. At present, it is anti-immigration in general, rather than specifically anti-Islam.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support. From what I understand, the anti-Islam description as it is currently given could be misleading, but I think that's largely because "anti-Islam" can mean so many things. While I agree that this definitely seems to be under the broader issue of cultural protectionism, I think that the strong opposition to Islam within Hungary is notable enough to include within the article (and is covered by reliable sources).

The current phrasing is that the party has "anti-Islam ... views", which is definitely true to a meaningful extent. On the other hand, antiziganism is included as the party being "accused of" it. From what I know, I think that these issues are very similar with the party, and maybe anti-Islam should be moved to the same list as antiziganism (i.e as an accusation) for consistency, or perhaps antiziganism moved to the same list as anti-Islam. Placeholderer (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification— I didn't mean to put words in your mouth by saying "I agree . . . cultural protectionism"— I poorly phrased that— that's just how I myself understand their anti-immigration stance) Placeholderer (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved "anti-Islam" to the list of accused-of views pending further discussion Placeholderer (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Jobbik being quite pro-Islam for Turanist reasons, it probably also applies for MHM Braganza (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-fascism

The European Parliamentary Research Service says that it's a neofascist party[3]. I think that it's enough to add it. Hidolo (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that commissioned study, yes. However, WP:CONTENTIOUS says that labels like neo-fascist should only be used if they are widely used (by reliable sources), and I don't think that the label is so accepted/widespread as to be includable in the infobox (completely appropriate to include as an allegation or description like in the Ideology section) Placeholderer (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources for neo-fascism.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Hidolo (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize most of those sources as reputable. Helper201 says the MSNBC source is an opinion; rosalux.de is a politically affiliated lobby group, and looking up "what is unherd.com" their page description opens with "UnHerd is for people who dare to think for themselves" so it doesn't strike me with confidence.

TLDR not reliable sources. Placeholderer (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidolo while I have not yet looked into these sources its clear from the url that the MSNBC source is an opinion piece. Opinion pieces should not be used as citations or used to support factual claims, per WP:RSOPINION. Helper201 (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently It has been publishied an article of European Interest that describe the party as neo-fascist.[13] Democrático Slovak (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't say the party is neo-fascist, but rather that it "embraces neo-fascist and racist views". For comparison, someone who supports a graduated income tax technically embraces Marxist views from the Communist Manifesto. Placeholderer (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

See Talk:Europe of Sovereign Nations#Protected. Please focus on one issue at a time by starting a new section on one of the affected articles with a specific proposal (text x should be retained/removed/added/changed because [reason] with [sources]). Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove Category:Neo-fascist parties

Per discussion above. Category was added unilaterally without discussion, and I don't think the party is widely described by reliable sources as being a neo-fascist party. Placeholderer (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days so removing category until further notice Placeholderer (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sources for neo-fascism

Neo-fascism has been added back to the infobox with some new sources. Here are the sources currently used to support neo-fascism in the infobox:

European Roma Rights Centre: An advocacy group is probably more appropriate to include with in-text attribution, instead of supporting factual infobox labels.

State of Hate report: This is co-produced by Hope not Hate, a marginally reliable source whose statements should be attributed, so probably not appropriate for use like this in infobox.

Jacob Green's thesis, Penn State: A bachelor thesis is almost definitely not reliable enough as used. However, if anyone has the opportunity to check Caderyn Owen-Jones, “Hungary.”, which Green cites when calling MHM fascist, that could be helpful.

Crikey: I didn't look into them very much, but Media Bias/Fact Check (disclaimer: MB/FC is self-published and itself not reliable for citations) labels them as factual but thoroughly leftward, including by using loaded words (e.g "fascist"). Probably worth keeping the citation in the infobox, but shouldn't be relied on.

Europarl study: Definitely worth keeping in the infobox. However, this is the only source among the current ones that I'm particularly comfortable using for infobox neo-fascism.

In summary: I'll remove Green's thesis. I support removal of the State of Hate and ERRC Neo-fascism citations from the infobox because I think those sources need in-text attribution. If neo-fascism were to be kept in the infobox, I'd support referencing with the Europarl study, and I'd be neutral about supporting it with Crikey (though my opinion could change if I get better sense of Crikey). Given that I only think 1 or 2 of the provided sources are appropriate to back up neo-fascism in the infobox, I support re-removal of neo-fascism from the infobox, but I won't remove it myself for now. Placeholderer (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholderer has correctly adressed the problems here and above, we should not confuse opinions with facts. The Ideology section already contained this as an accusation, but after some editors started to mess up this section too without consensus. The party's description and infobox ideology section contains what is the party's ideology in reality, not a vast list of outside opinions/accusations. Hidolo unfortunately started to mess up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Homeland_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1225523238 with this edit, when concealing an accusation which came from the European Roma Rights Centre, and he continued other ways https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Homeland_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1229112272 and other users also noticed this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Homeland_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1230000684 + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Homeland_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1230042205 and warned Hidolo, but he continued https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Homeland_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1230012529 + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Homeland_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1230080791 even with a vague remarks like "no one wants to discuss it", lately Helper201 pushed again further, even spreading to other articles and reverting others by presenting it as something with consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Hungarian_parliamentary_election&diff=prev&oldid=1241946777, this is not ok like this. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]