Talk:Romani people in Hungary

Duplicated material

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

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

Tone and style?

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

Hungarian discrimination section vs. objectivity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination?

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

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

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

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

Discrimination

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

Language

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

Neutrality problems

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

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

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

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

this text is written in the Nazi style

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

"Objective problems"

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

I want to add that there are a lot of useful facts here, it's just written in a very out-of-date and foreign way. If no one else volunteers, and reading the above "Tone and Style" issues, I can offer to do it. 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fire ahead. Be bold! RashersTierney (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the "Roma in Hungary" are Hungarian citizens, born in Hungary, and speak Hungarian fluently. So the article title itself is not written in idiomatic English, it would be like having an article "Negros in America" or "Jews in America" (the latter is a good example because Jewish people can also speak another language, Hebrew or Yiddish). Actually I just Googled "Jews in America" and we do have an article about it, it's called "American Jews" (and not "Jews in America"), thereby proving my point exactly. That article begins:

"American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans,[3] are American citizens or resident aliens of the Jewish faith and/or Jewish ethnicity."

By the same token,

1. The present article should be entitled "Romani Hungarians" (or "Hungarian Romani")

- or equivalently "Roma Hungarians" or "Hungarian Roma"

2. The present article could simply begin with the same sentence: '"Hungarian Roma, also known as Romani Hungarians, are Hungarian citizens or resident aliens of Roma descent."

If you would please make these two changes immediately, I will "be bold" as you suggest and improve the rest of the article.  ::: If, however, even these obvious changes cannot be made, I'm not going to waste my breath and someone with better connections has to do it. 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure that the article is intended to be only about Hungarian Roma, but also Roma from other countries in Hungary, per Romani people in Spain, Romani people in France and Roma in Greece - however there does appear to be some inconsistency accross the project and the matter certainly could be debated, perhaps at a centralised page. However, making your editing conditional on such a prior change isn't likely to be taken up. RashersTierney (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll just edit it. The article is about Roma who have Hungarian citizenship and speak Hungarian (this might be unclear from the present state of the article). Would you please change the article title while I edit? Thanks for your help. 188.157.230.192 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Roma culture

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

History

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

and what was the situation of gypsies under communism?

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

Possible plagiarism

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

Number of Roma people

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

I think you want to start an edit war. You perfectly know that estimation are between 600,000 - 1,000,000 in Hungary which corresponds to 7-11% from 9,900,000 total population.Hortobagy (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Hortobagy, I suggest that you should read more carefully our community rules, including WP:NOR. Do not refrain from adding information to any of the articles based on reliable sources, but please remember that Wikipedia is not the proper place to present our original research. Borsoka (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hortobagy: WP articles should not be built upon what we think is true, but only on sourced material. I do not have any problem with changing those percentages, but you should provide valid, reliable sources. So far you have failed to provide sources which would support your edits. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How many are them? After your sources? Hortobagy (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Officially (according to the latest census), about 3.2% of Hungarian citizens declared themselves Roma. However, this should only be treated as a lower estimate and there are many other estimates available. For example, this one [3] talks about 7%, and that one [4] talks about 8-10%. On the other hand, this [5] soruce talks about 5%. Thus, as you can see, various sources use different estimates. If you want to use the 11% as an upper estimate, then you should cite reliable sources which support this. Otherwise, the original percentages will be restored. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

10,5 % you can estimate as 11% isn't it right? Hortobagy (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources which support your numbers, please, bring them forward. Otherwise, don't waste our time. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2009/hungary-roma.html Hortobagy (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The above source confirms the estimation of 10% (ten percent). Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But you know it's from 2009, today is 2013 and Roma in Hungary increased. Hungary's population decreased. Hortobagy (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I put back the original sourced estimates, but of course, the issue can be reopened anytime, if reliable sources are provided. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

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

Yes, I agree with you. Several data are missing or not properly presented, while the section about discrimination against Roma (which is certainly an existing problem) is a bit over-represented compared to the whole article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But you can only do a separate article like discrimination against Roma people in Hungary Hortobagy (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the discrimination against Roma people in Hungary? Can we open a discussion here about what this article must contain?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New sources for the article

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

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

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8026722.stm
• http://www.politics.hu/20120223/state-officials-remember-roma-murder-victims-in-tatarszentgyorgy/
• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/170110

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

• http://www.kisebbsegiombudsman.hu/hir-554-2009-annual-report.html
• http://www.eu2011.hu/news/presidency-gives-direction-roma-strategy

III. Situation of Romani in Hungary

• http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/22417/ACCEPT_PLURALISM_PB_2012_09_WP4_HUNGARY.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&sa=U&ei=FYf5UZLEBcqK4AT3z4GIBA&ved=0CCEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFoca3wwNZvMBbRoc9b5FMj8GG06Q
• McDougall, Gay. "Human Rights Council: Fourth Session". United Nations. Darouet added this as a footnote to Ferenc Szaniszló

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

• http://www.okri.hu/content/blogcategory/26/52/
• http://epa.oszk.hu/00700/00775/00050/2003_01_10.html
• http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2137390-the-gypsy-kings-part-1-of-2/
• the case of László Péntek

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Romani people in Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070926102520/http://www.eumap.org/topics/minority/reports/roma_education/report/national/hungary.pdf to http://www.eumap.org/topics/minority/reports/roma_education/report/national/hungary.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061021193229/http://www.romnews.com/community/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=202 to http://www.romnews.com/community/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=202
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080528174057/http://www.romaweb.hu/doc/konyvtar/hablicsek_magyarorszagi_ciganysag_demografiaja.pdf to http://www.romaweb.hu/doc/konyvtar/hablicsek_magyarorszagi_ciganysag_demografiaja.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081016162507/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2000/09/21/qanda.2.t.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/09/21/qanda.2.t.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150403113028/http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2870 to http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2870

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Violence Against Ethnic Majority

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

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

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

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

I see that Borsoka has reshuffled the relevant section, removing the subsection headings and placing the sentence about the Hungarian school teacher above the paragraphs about violence against Romani people. Unfortunately, that sentence has gotten even more mangled in the process. I'm still not sure why it's even in the article. Why are we mentioning this one particular crime? -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Why do you think it should not be mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Borsoka, but you'll have to try harder than that. Don't revert my edits again without first discussing here. I'm putting back the subtitle, and then you can engage here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Norden1990, the reason why the section on violence against Romani people is appropriate in this article is that there is a significant history in Hungary of racism and violence against Romani people. The serial killings perpetrated by organized fascist gangs, covered in the article, are just a part of that history. That history is significant enough that it warrants inclusion in an article that generally discusses Romani people in Hungary. However, a single crime committed by a small number of Romani people in Hungary is not significant enough to be in an article that broadly discusses Romani People in Hungary. To give a comparable situation, we might expect an article on the Jews in Russia to discuss the pogroms, but not to list one particular crime one Jewish person once perpetrated. Violence against Romani people by far-right elements has been a major issue in Hungary, which is why it merits inclusion in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You may not know, but that "single crime" caused a real shock in the Hungarian society in 2006: the teacher was murdered because he hit a Romani girl (who, thanks to God, survived the accident). Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the progroms against Jewish people in Russia. Do you think that thousands of Romani people have been murdered during organized progroms almost each decade of the last 300 years in Hungary? If you think that this is the case, you should read some books about the history of the Romani people before editing articles relating to them. Borsoka (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I think you understand my analogy with an article on Jews in Russia perfectly. I think it's a show of bad faith to constantly claim not to understand my posts. Again, you'll have to explain why you think this particular crime (yes, a "single crime") deserves space in an article that broadly covers Romani people in Hungary, and why the heading "Romani Violence against the Ethnic Majority" deserves a subsection heading. Is that a phenomenon that is significant enough to merit a subsection in this article? It looks like it's simply been shoved into the article as some sort of counterweight to the section, "Violence against Romani People." But the single crime included under the heading doesn't merit its own section. I'd also like to point out, for the third time, that the article describes that crime using a completely ungrammatical sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) Sorry, I think, bad faith can only be demonstrated on your side. No, I did not understand your analogy. Your comparison demonstrates that your knowledge both of the history of Jews in Russia and of the history of Romani people in Hungary is highly limited. (2) I have not stated that the heading "Romani violence against the Ethnic Majority" should be preserved. I only stated, that specific crime should be mentioned, because it caused a real shock in the Hungarian society. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and remove the second heading then. If you want to mention the crime against the schoolteacher, then you should do two things:

1. Find a better place for it in the article. It doesn't belong in the section about anti-Roma violence.

2. Fix the grammar of the sentence.

And for the record, I think my analogy with Jews in Russia was entirely clear. Do you not agree with it, or do you really not understand it? There's an important distinction there.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record. Yes, your analogy with Jews in Russia clearly demonstrates that your knowledge on the subject is limited. Please try to find a consensus before removing text from the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Look Borsoka, you can think whatever you'd like about my knowledge of the subject. It's irrelevant to the discussion here. As for removing the heading, "Romani violence against the ethnic majority," you yourself said you're not advocating it be preserved. Since you don't care for its preservation, since neither you nor Norden1990 have articulated a reason for having that subheading, and since it's a racially inflammatory subheading, I've removed it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Violence

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

I reverted it because it's a POV title. You inserted it because you don't like mention of anti-Roma discrimination. There is a long history of anti-Roma violence in Hungary, which you're trying to relativize by including every instance of a Romani person committing violence that you can. You've inserted a number of individual crimes committed by Romani people, moved them to the top of the section, and then changed the title of the section. This is all overtly POV editing. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to play out your political fights. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That was chronological order, that is why I added them on the top....!!! An article should cover the widest scope possible of the facts. There is the phenomenon of tension between majority and Romani. It is a sociological fact. What is more: both sides suffer from it. What You suggest doing, is ignoring one side of the story. What do You propose, in which article should we insert these facts, You feel irrelevant here? Should we drop the Romani Self-Governement, EP -members as well, because it does not fit in Your perception? --Ltbuni (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni, you've made numerous posts now across Wikipedia about your political objective in editing here. You frankly shouldn't be editing on topics that you're unwilling to approach neutrally, and that includes Hungarian-politics-related articles. Combined with your blatant canvassing, you're way out of line here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not in a position to decide who can or can not edit Wikipedia. So drop Your Social Justic Warrior attitude and try to understand other people's point of View. --Ltbuni (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability in Violence Section

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

Recent reverts

Skyhighway,

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

• it is now 9%. Why you want 8.8? It might be 8.8988886, or 8.89999999999999 it is rounded to 9%Skyhighway (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Borsoka

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

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

I am not an admin. I do not have anything against Romani people. Please try not to delete properly referenced sentences. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Borsoka, why don't you try to be more objective and not to present only the POV of Hungary? Skyhighway (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You may not know, but Hungary does not have a POV. The Hungarians do not have a uniform POV either, so I cannot push a Hungarian POV. Why do not you try to read and apply wp policies? You could seek assistance at WP:Teahouse. Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP policies advice for consensus. You haven't reached one with me or others. Skyhighway (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Romani people autonomy fight in Hungary

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

Let us check the double standard of Hungarian users on this. Skyhighway (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It was proposed by one single Roma man. Do you have any other information on this issue? Please read WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

But he represents how much population? 10%.. why don't you give territorial autonomy like you want for Seklers? I want to see how you edit Wikipedia and support also this idea...what do you say? would it be fair? Skyhighway (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but we cannot use WP for propagating autonomy for a population which do not want it. Please, do not use WP to share your original research with the community. Please read WP:NOR and WP:DUE. If the notability of the piece of information that you inserted cannot be verified, it should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

So let me understand your double standard, you do propagate autonomy for a population (for example you know which) but when comes to situation in Hungary, when more than 10% live in Hungary and they want, then you don't support. How double standards. However, wikipedia readers should be informed about reality and facts. Not about your POV agenda. Skyhighway (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not propagate autonomy for any population. Please, do not duplicate all discussions. Borsoka (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)©

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

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

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

References

violence section

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

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

Who said there should be a racial motivation for a conflict? The title was Violence between the majority and the Romani people, which you unilaterally changed, hence your argumentation does not stand for the earlier version.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC))

It is irrelevant to the page then. There is no source describing "a conflict", merely a lot of sources that describe systematic violence against the Roma. Do you have a scholarly article which describes "Violence between the majority and the Romani people"? Because without that, individual reports of crimes are a collection of WP:OR and synthesis. Of course there are crimes committed by members of various ethnic groups against each other, but they are not of encyclopaedic interest in articles on that group unless they are mentioned as part of something bigger.

As it happens, there is scholarly literature on the specific crime you wish to see included, but it talks about the racist use made of an individual criminal action, as part of the racist discourse on "Gypsy Crime". If you can wait a couple of days I will include it in a new properly sourced paragraph on perceptions of criminality. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A section title may be formed by close pharaphrasing, and yes, I am sure I'd find lot of sources for these, since the issue since a long time is extensively discussied, until today, with recent events. The problem is you changed the section to only identify atrocities suffered, but not vica versa or the general problems/issues from the other side (shall they be included into the so-called racist discourse or not, since apart from that these problems exist, and just because some radical discourse use it, it does not mean the problem did not exist or it would be just a racist canard). Ok, now I'll wait and see what you'll perform, but this does not mean the current version has consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC))

Academic articles that support the idea of a conflict, the source linked previously did not. In the mean time, could you go and add crimes committed by Hungarians against Roma to the Hungarians page? Also add a section on violence by African-Americans against white people to that page. It should be good for a laugh.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, read back if you did not understand properly what I have said, also some of your recent additions has to be formed.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC))

I'm sorry I don't understand, the word "formed" doesn't make sense in this context. Could you try rephrasing?

First of all, the source is a bit old and it summarized happenings until then, but not even accurate. Officially no discimination occured after the war periods, and after the fall Communism, not any party did or could afford such by any means. Debate may be about how effective were the Roma policies helping the Roma to integrate, but the sentence needs serious rephrasing, or to be abadoned fully.

About the police chief (Albert Pásztor), you are as well not totallz right, since the police chief did not tell anything by a racist manner, but based on the criminal statistics at his region responsible of. Even later as I said, the parties who run him explained this, similarly to the U.S. where statistics record race, etc. This is a political tabloid, that was very good to create scandals and use it in the political life, as the other issue, which was only condemning the criminal parts who killing people, not the entire community. These are not the most relevant cases that would even properly fit.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC))

The source does state anti-Roma sentiment among the population has been constant, with periods of intensification. There are others I will add too, looking at the wording. The edit included "often" with regards to government discrimination, as there was a period between 1996 and 2005 when we could say the government was not anti-Roma, and some periods of the Communist era too. Therefore effectively, the wording is already saying what you are.

The Hungarian government does not collect statistics on the ethnicity of criminals, therefore the police chief was speaking of his personal impressions of crimes. Petty thefts are generally not solved, therefore this impression must be based on incomplete data, and in any case they are a total generalisation. To claim that "gypsy crime" is a problem is a neo-nazi talking point, that must not be given credibility in the text.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, anti-Roma governments did not exist in the timeline I referred, both political sides made alliances with Roma organizations and put Roma representatives in the parliament, any criticism is again the political game of the two sides, in order to win the Roma votes for the elections, which may be decisive, so this is out of question.

Please do not confuse statistics collected by the Hungarian goverment with the criminal statistics of the Police. Even in the television, when they ask the help of the people, they refer as dark-skinned, creole-skinned if relevant, not because of any discriminative manner, but obviously those charachteristics that help identification, including eye color, facial hair or any other significant attributes like he weared a red t-shirt and white boots, with glasses or having a tattoo on his right arm, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC))

Have you got a source in which the police chief claims to have statistics of that kind? Otherwise, that looks to be OR. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, just because you are not well informed and don't know the details of some issues professionally, it does not mean others doing OR. ([6]), ([7]). It clearly outlined, noone debated the validity and the accuaracy of the statement, which in fact the police leader even read out and took from the police administration and the descriptions of the cases. Even when he was dismissed, he was not dismissed becasue of any anti-Roma attitude, it has been stated that such declarations should be avoided as it could raised some problematic isses, the charachterisation of some commited crimes.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC))

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

Sorry, you have to separate journalist opinion or public opinion fom the facts, in order to be neutral. In the sources it is clear what he told, was read out from the police documents (ethnic background of criminals in some cases). Also his boss who removed him, never ever said or affirmed his declarations would be racist, but only that such charachetrization has to be avoided because it is unfortunate. On the other issue, I expressed why the inclusion is not supported, so it is alrady the nth time you disregard our policies and continue edit warring. Bayer's statement was not made against collectively the Roma people, but against those Roma criminals who commit manslaughter. Fidesz did not made any support, and did not condemn because it was not an Anti-Roma stamement. By that means, you could also put a section to Attila Lakatos, the Roma-voevod from Borsod, who also openly declared there is a Gypsy-criminality in Hungary (again, himself is a Roma leader), etc. The catch is the political SOAPBOX is taking every manifestation immediately as anti-Roma, depending on which political side the author could be bounded, the opposition media start's to visionate and publish many invented aspects that are far from the reality, as in the other case, and this biased publicists are shortened and taken by the international media, it does not matter other sources as well explain it neutrally. So, adding anything do this section that not fully comply with real and clear Anti-Roma sentiment, that violates the policies I referred. You may say you added two disputed cases from different political sides, but it's not a real neutrality if both cases are disputed and cherrypicked. The section - and the above one - properly summarizes the relevant matters.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

NO, I am taking sourced academic material which states that certain actions and behaviours are racist, and using them to add points to the article. There is a hell of a lot of it too. It's not about my opinion, it's what the sources say. I have lots and lots of sources re. Pasztor and Bayer, now if you want to talk about wording, I am happy to do so, but blanket exclusionism is not an option. BTW, please refrain from accusations of edit-warring. Up to this point you have made no defence of Bayer, this was the only part I added. I'm surprised you would try, tbh.

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

Yes, you took them, but a bit blindly, because we struggle for WP:NPOV here. Did you understand what I described earlier? The sources not walways describe accurately events, and marks them anti-Roma even if it was not a clear racism or motivated by such. So if you wish to include all individuals who were accused/regarded to have anti-Roma statements, the list would be quite long, according to your sources which come mainly from one political side's evaluation (the only exception is Pásztor's case). Sorry, it's not an accusation, you did edit-warring, despite multiple times I asked you to follow our policies, or you are not aware of WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS? And please read back, if you still falsely imply I was not against inlcusion of any such cherrypicked cases, my edits and the talk proves that, so please stop this.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

@Borsoka:,

nobody debated what was said, did you read the talk? The discussion is not about the relation of the publicists commen't with human standards.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not understand how the deletion of a sentence about Bayer's statement is verified by any of the statements above in this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiengir, I am happy to include qualifiers such as "was accused of racism" for the Pasztor case. But as Boroska states, the Bayer case was not even mentioned by you after your edit. I hadn't even noticed that you had cut it to be honest, which is why I didn't put it back immediately. I feel that a statement such as this, supported by members of the government is incredibly pertinent to the article, as do most sources on anti-Roma discrimination. It's hard to understand what argument could be made for its exclusion. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a remark: no members of the government supported Bayer's statement. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have said "supported Bayer", although not his comments. Gabriella Selmeczi came very close though. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Boynamedsue,

Borsoka did not mention what you say, on the other hand, read back, "the other issue, which was only condemning the criminal parts who killing people, not the entire community.", so not spelling his name does not mean I did not refer that I disagree inclusion, which has been in coherence with my edits and edit logs and other explanations.

@Borsoka:,

the shortly the catch is if just because some manifestations are considered or the individual accused of being Anti-Roma, would that mean in fact the subjects is? If someone condemn a subgroup of a minority not because they are Roma, but becasue of they criminals involved in manslaughter? Or Pásztor is anti-Roma, just because he made open the criminal statistics of some crimes? You know the best some sources, really play on these epithets, hoping political gains and big internation scandals, when the reality is a bit different, sometimes not even halfway.

Should not we include in case that the Roma members of Fidesz and Roma alliances of Fidesz also refused to condemn? Why we don't mention Attila Lakatos who verified the phenomenon which Jobbik introduced?(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

We can mention anything which is supported in the article's context by reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Lakatos is not noteworthy in terms of the article, he is a Fidesz supporter of low rank, the "voivodship" of gypsies appears to be a title handed to him by as small number of Roma businessman linked to Fidesz. He doesn't even have a Hungarian wikipedia article. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, he has been noteworthy and mentioned by the mainstream regarding the events, it is sourced.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

It is unacceptable to have the view of one individual, a completely un-noteworthy individual, given such prominence. It's a gross introduction of POV. If you want it in, please introduce balance by finding other Roma individuals' comments on the matter. It is clearly there to try and imply "look, even the gypsies say gypsies are criminals". It is either necessary to balance the OPINION or exclude the opinion. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I never said noone else's opinion should be omitted. Read just your own lines. We may include a variety of opinions or none, but you wish to restrict the earlier and making it selective. E.g. if the press considered Navracsics', Kocsis' and Lakatos' opinion to mention, no reason to censor out - especially he is a Roma, and a known prominent in his community, really fulfill variety -, indeed as well further opinions may be added. However, I think there is already enough information about these issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC))

Well, if you want his opinion included, the onus is on you to find other gypsy voices. There are also concerns about the sources, I am not sure that the right-wing Hungarian press which seeks out Lakatos because he says what they want to hear would constitute reliable sources on their own. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The point is, you cannot omit him just because there are not other opinions presented yet from a group you outline, variety of oipions we are talking about, until it is an attributed opinion, we have no concern. Also Kocsis' opinion is not dependent whether other what did say or not. Your last sentence I cannot even take serious, since the source is in fact solid "left-wing", etc. :).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

Well, again, the onus is on you to prove it is a reliable source. In terms of the article, the paragraph relates to racism among Hungarian politicians which means that the opinions of Hungarian politicians are entirely relevant. Lakatos is not a politician, nor does he seem notable for anything much. Again, he may have a place as part of a range of Gypsy opinions, but as it stands, there is no consensus for his inclusion in the text as the sole voice of Hungary's gypsies. 18:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Boynamedsue (talk)

I've had a little look at boon.edu., which is the source used to justify the inclusion of Lakatos' opinions. Admittedly I am not a Hungarian speaker, so perhaps my perceptions are incorrect, could you confirm or correct the following statements: 1. boon.hu is a local news/newspaper site for Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen, a small Hungarian county with a population slightly smaller than that of Leeds. 2. The site is broadly sympathetic to the Fidesz-KDNP coalition that runs the region, and very anti-Jobbik. 3. The site/paper supported the candidacy of Pasztor? (apologies for the lack of accents throughout). Boynamedsue (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you've missing something, atv.hu I referred, anyway both of them are RS. No, there is not such restriction that only politicians may manifest, it may be anyone, and the sources consudered it notable, your approach is totally flawed, since noone said he would be the "sole voice of Hungary's gypsies". If you refer to consensus, you now very well that regarding any of your edits so far, their inclusion is as far warranted as you accept their balancing, otherwise - as I told more times above - the whole Bayer text and collateral would go as well. I don't know such site like "boon.edu". 1. boon.hu is an online news portal, they refer to Northern Hungary, as well as news portal of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplém County (the rest I don't check, the population or comparison with Leeds is irrelevant). 2.-3. I don't have information about these.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC))

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

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

Sorry,

I never met such approch that a lack of knowlegde of the so-called political stance of website would determine it's RS being, with this is you imply taking sides would make something an RS, which is not the case, cannot be taken serious, when opposing issues emerge mostly RS are leaning to favor into one direction, etc. So this argumentation of yours ir out of question. Again, I don't have to find other "quotes by gypsies", and I donot give any such impression you imply, since it is attributed, and sources considered relevant his opinion among others, who have as well certain qualities attributed (on the other hand, among the Gypsy community they make their own decisions as well, so it is not self-styled, however even the RS desribed him like so).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC))

Sources with strong political biases must be treated with caution, though they are not excluded a priori, but more worrying is the question that you don't know its biases. If you don't know such basic information, how can you be so sure it is RS? I have found a RS on Lakatos which describes him as the "self-styled voivod" linked to Fidesz, so I will add that to the page when I have time. Voivod of the gypsies is not a real title. It will not cure the WP:Balance problem, but it's a start. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Boynamedsue,

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

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

@Boynamedsue: depends on what you mean by reliable - most pre-2014 regional newspapers didn't do much fact-checking or investigation, but didn't have any hidden agendas. In any case, if you only care about establishing that Lakatos was the voivod for BAZ county, Hungarian media did generally accept that claim. (Here's a random article from Origo for example. While also a government propaganda outlet today, it was one of the top Hungarian news sites at time.) What that means is less clear. Traditionally, voivods were Roma leaders appointed by the non-Roma authorities; the system was largely eradicated in the 18-19th century during the forced assimilation of Roma people. It was recreated by Roma intellectuals in the 2000s as a kind of revival attempt, but by that time an official system of representation based on democratic elections (the National Gypsy Council) did exist, although it was generally considered dysfunctional. Leaders of the Council tend to dismiss voivods as not representing anyone (they are basically selected by rich Roma families); voivods tend to dismiss the Council as grifters who don't actually care about improving the life of the Roma people. I don't think either group is really seen by the wider society as representing Romas. (All this is complicated by the fact that while non-Roma tend to think of Roma as a single group, they don't think of themselves as such; there are multiple ethnically and culturally distinct groups who feel little kinship with each other.) Here's a more critical take on the voivod institution from Magyar Narancs, a fairly well-respected weekly newspaper.

All that said, accepting for the sake of argument that Lakatos is a somewhat prominent Roma leader, why is his opinion relevant to the article? Roma are overrepresented in pretty crime, there is plenty of academic research on that. Many of them live well below the poverty line, their traditional culture has been largely destroyed by forced assimilation, they faced mass unemployment after the collapse of socialism (which has by now resulted in multi-generational unemployment), racist attitudes towards them are prevalent in non-Roma society, including the authorities. That gave rise to a classic underclass with all the usual consequences for crime. The Hungarian far-right tried to depict them as genetically or culturally driven to crime, and as being overrepresented in violent crime, with little basis in fact - that is also well-covered in academic literature. I'm not sure what opinions of random politicians and public intellectuals would add other than selection bias. --Tgr (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think this edit by Boynamedsue is justified as independent sources do find that Hungarian politicians are expressing racist views towards the Roma. It should not have been reverted.VR _talk 03:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

VR, please read the above discussion about this, what happened is jusitifed, the most important is not to present opinions as facts, etc. Boynamedsue, as you can see you the above argumnentation, you falsely make that assertion theat Lakatos would be the collective voice of a community, there is not such assertion, it's an as well attributed opinion like others, which sources considered to mention, along with the others. Yes Anglophone leaders may be surprised in how detailed (="extremely open nature", saying/tellings the things quite openly/rankly/explicitly which is not usual/average) these issues became generally discussed, what it should not be confused with "extreme nature and prevalence of anti-Roma racism", as you try to describe. In other words, openly talking about "taboos" is the result of the unsolved problems and their escalations and have became common in the public discourse.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

All academic sources which I have seen agree that anti-Roma racism is extremely prevalent and violent in Hungary, they also agree that political discourse in Hungary contains large amounts of racist language. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

work your way through this lot. Remember, we are supposed to prefer academic sources to news, where possible. I simply do not see the value of Lakatos' comments to the article, except in order to include your POV that anti-Roma racism is caused by the Roma. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, at the same time we have to also care about neutral and factual presentation of the facts, especially nowadays in Hungary have almost neglibile issues, while in other countries in Europe some ethnic or religious groups are daily endangered and facing even physical atrocities. I have to utterly reject your erroneous assertion such "include your POV...", since such I don't have. You have to accept people see differently some events and will have more opinions, and the way you personally see the value is not necessarily shared by others, the reader will get all viewpoints, that's the most important.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

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

No, I did not (and not even clear what you are talking about, btw.). We have to follow neutrality, you cannot omit opinions you dislike, neither you can present opinions as facts (especially if not all the instances has been met with the accusation itself).(KIENGIR (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

Given that Tgr and myself agree that the inclusion of Lakatos is not desirable, and no more users appear ready to comment, I have removed references to him from the article. I'm sorry I couldn't come to an agreement on this with you KIENGIR, but in this case I think we should go with the majority unless more users come forward with different perspectives. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, your are completely wrong, since Tgr did not make any clear statement like you in this, but even if he would did, still no consensus would have been reached (to say nothing of, you did not just remove from one part of the article - despite he reinforced the source is reliable - but as well from the other part, but then consequently the whole section should have been removed per the discussion). Your last sentence as well reinforce you don't know/understand or pretending not to understand what consensus means.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC))

Well, I disagree with your interpretation of TGR's comments. The view that Lakatos and his comments are not notable (2 people) has more support than the view that it does (1 person). So from that standpoint, I consider it best to leave them out provisionally.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

He just raised a question, regardless if you agree with me or not. You just reinforced you what I have wrtten in my last answer, not understanding what consenus means, and all participants stance matters btw., including mine. Moreover, I reiterate again, as per our discussion, either we remove the whole section at each instance, or leave everything, this you were told from the beginning, so stop these unilateral removals.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC))

There is no consensus for Lakatos's inclusion and there are serious doubts with regards to WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE for including his opinions. I would suggest taking it down the arbitration route if you feel it should be included.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue,

pretending continously differently the situation as it is the worst you can do, if there is not consensus for inclusion, then as well there is no consensus the inlcusion fo the sections you added, because then especially fails WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE which has been demonstrated more times here, regardless you wish to turn the things upside down, which has been the main problem of your edits since the beginning, and you were told more times only until then their inclusion is supported if you let them balance. Simply do not understand what consensus means, and arbitration is this discussion in the talk page, which resolution you do not follow but seriously harm continously. This was the last time I explained, and no more you may ignore it or pretend not to understand.

Consequently, the corresponding sections will be reset (the upper one to Revision as of 22:54, 3 September 2020, the below one to Revision as of 22:18, 9 September), as no consensus, however, the last stable version would be the Revision as of 21:05, 18 September 2020, which you started to challenge again from the middle of nowhere. Either this, or that has only consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC))