Talk:Budapest Complex

@Kovcszaln6 Thank you for the revision! I must say that as a non-native speaker who made an AI-assisted translation (checking sentence by sentence if the meaning had remained the same and using three different AIs and carefully comparing the results, but still), the issue that I feared the most was the English level of the article. If everything is ok from that side, it's really a great news for me. What I also find remarkable is this attention to the sources. On it.wiki (my home wiki) I'm currently fighting tooth and nail just for make the community accept the idea that primary, secondary and tertiary sources must be used in different ways and for different aims, it's almost moving to see that there's somewhere in the wikimedia environment where people still use sources carefully and with encyclopedic rigour, so thank you! Getting to the point of the review:

1. YouTube video: that sentence is almost completely referenced by the two other sources. The tagesspiegel references in 2023, the neo-Nazi demonstration was formally banned by Hungarian authorities but took place anyway [...] giving Nazi salutes [...] the neo-Nazi demonstrators assaulted journalists present, two of whom were injured to the head. Later that evening, the neo-Nazi militants reportedly went also into the city center to attack left-wing counter-demonstrators. The Faz references in the green area of Városmajor. So, the only thing that is referenced by democ is wearing SS and Wehrmacht uniforms. The reason why I added that video is first of all that it's the source of that part of the Tagesspiegel article (or rather, it's directly incorporated in the article), so the Tagesspiegel's journalists have apparently deemed it as a reliable source regarding the reconstruction of the events. In the video there is a more thorough account of what happened, with images and so on, so I thought that it was a good supplementary material for the article. I also added that detail about the uniforms because IMHO it is relevant in the following controversy between the alleged attackers and the Hungarian authorities about how the victims were chosen. If you think that is necessary though I can remove both the source and the detail about the uniforms.
2. Tageszeitung: I don't really agree with that assessment, but most importantly, another more recent scholar analysis seems to show very different results: in the ranking at page 444 Die Tageszeitung ranks third, getting 7.3 points out of ten (with the first one being the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung with 7.4 out of ten). Generally speaking, it'd be extremely difficult to replace it. Die Tageszeitung is a left-leaning newspaper, and these are the newspapers which have paid more attention to all the different phases of these trials (the same applies for il manifesto in Italy). Of course I've paid attention to take out possible NNPOV remarks out of these sources and keeping to the facts, especially in the cases in which I have seen that there was some controversy that didn't seem really relevant to me for this article (for example I've left out the assertion that Maja T. is "in confinment", a lexical choice that was criticized by conservative newspapers like Die Welt).

--Friniate ✉ 19:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll accept the draft. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kovcszaln6 Thank you very much! :-) --Friniate ✉ 21:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ltbuni Do you have any source stating that the Day of Honor celebrations remember also the Hungarian civilians? I'm not stating that there were no civilians, but the sentence is not about what happened in 1945, but about the things that happened in 1945 that are celebrated by Neo Nazis today. The source that is now present in the article says: Jedes Jahr gedenken tausende Teilnehmer der deutschen Wehrmacht, der Waffen-SS und ihrer ungarischen Kollaborateure (transl. every year thousands of participants remember the German Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS and their Hungarian collaborators), that was more or less what I had written. --Friniate ✉ 13:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I meant that in the actual event civilians also participated.: "A magyar és német katonák, nyilas fegyveresek mellett batyus-babakocsis civilek is próbáltak kijutni." Source: Federation of Jewish Communities in Hungary. https://mazsihisz.hu/hirek-a-zsido-vilagbol/hirek-lapszemle/kitores-65-eve-mindenfele-hullahegyek-tornyosultak--Ltbuni (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

According to you, reading Ilaria Salis article, was she reported/not reported?--Ltbuni (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the radical right wing extremism, but this source says that they DO remember the civilians: A Vitézi Rend megemlékezése az 1945 február 11.-i kitörés civil és katonai áldozatairól a I. ker Kapisztrán téren. Source: https://www.vitezirend.com/rovatok/hirek/emlekezz-a-kitores-hoseire/--Ltbuni (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The nazi civilians who were collaborating with the german nazis... Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

For some reason, Idk why, the link does not work, but if you copy the Hungarian text ( A Vitézi Rend megemlékezése az 1945 február 11.-i kitörés civil és katonai áldozatairól a I. ker Kapisztrán téren) into google, it is gonna be the first hit.----Ltbuni (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Probably because you don't put a space after the URL and before your signature, which means that each URL has -- attached to the end of it. Polygnotus (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ltbuni I don't manage to access the url, but does this group take part to the demostration of the 12th February? --Friniate ✉ 23:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, this is again a primary source in this context... --Friniate ✉ 23:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Friniate There is a strong movement of historical revisionism in Hungary.

Vitézi Rend (aka the Order of Vitéz) has various incarnations (re-imaginings?).

The US State Departement listed it among a group of "organizations under the direction of the Nazi government of Germany."

And its founder Miklós Horthy said: I have always been an anti-Semite throughout my life.

His Wikipedia article says: Horthy has sometimes been labelled as a fascist.

The page Ltbuni has linked is a nazi propaganda page.

I asked Claude.ai to translate it and it started with: I'll translate this, but I need to be direct about what you're asking me to translate: this is a revisionist commemorative text from the Vitézi Rend (Order of Vitéz, a far-right Hungarian organization) glorifying the 1945 Budapest breakout. It portrays Nazi SS officers and Hungarian collaborators as heroes, contains antisemitic references ("Cohn's bandits"), and frames Soviet forces' arrival as "occupation" rather than liberation. and ended with This is Holocaust revisionism and Nazi glorification propaganda. The historical facts are distorted - Budapest was indeed liberated from Nazi occupation, not "occupied" by Soviets. Polygnotus (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, that the attack was aimed at radical right wing extremists. If you read the whole article, you will find that innocent people were beaten up too. Please, explain--Ltbuni (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you want me to explain? Reliable sources say the alleged victims were neo-nazis. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Polish neo nazis? Seriously? You really think that in a city with 2 million habitants it is easy to identify who nazi or who is not? Look at the map of Budapest!!! The places where the events took place are some 10 km-s away from each other.--Ltbuni (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to believe that Polish neo-nazis exist, considering how much that country suffered in WW2, but they do.

I haven't seen a reliable source claim that all/any alleged victims were Polish neo-nazis, IIRC, but it is possible of course; the event attracts neo-nazis internationally.

The people who attended the Day of Honor [sic] didn't really hide their identity or nazi beliefs, so in that sense they are easy to identify. You can check on YouTube. Polygnotus (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

"[...]refers to several assaults against right-wing extremists[...]" I believe this section should be reworded, considering that some victims seem to not have been participants of the "Day of Honor" demonstration - according to Hungarian police, some victims of the attack were attacked due to the attackers believing they were "on their way" to the demonstration.

also "following the neo-Nazi demonstration" also seems incorrect considering according to the article, the attacks happened from 9th to 11th February, while the demonstration itself happens on the night between 11-12th

I suggest rewriting the introduction of the article to be something among the lines of: "The term Budapest Complex [...] refers to several assaults in February 2023 in Budapest carried out by alleged far-left militants from the antifa movement against individuals believed by the attackers of being right-wing extremists intending to take part in the neo-Nazi "Day of Honor" demonstration. "

I think this wording would be more neutral, thought I ask for input from other people. -wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 16:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wojtekpolska1013 You're right about the two remarks (my bad, I should have better checked the lead as I translated it), but your suggested wording doesn't fully convince me. I'd keep the in-text attribution of the identification of the perpetrators.

Something like: refers to several assaults that occurred in Budapest in February 2023, aimed at right-wing extremists in the days preceding the neo-Nazi "Day of Honor" demonstration. These attacks were attributed by Hungarian and German authorities to far-left militants from the antifa movement, among whom there are some individuals already involved in the Dresden left-wing extremists trial. Does it convince you? --Friniate ✉ 22:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be an appropriate introduction for the article yes -wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 17:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done --Friniate ✉ 18:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@WolfmanFP I'm sorry but I don't really understand this tag. The sources supporting the statement are present. Please consider that according to WP:NPOV we should: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Do you have a reliable source that states that Zoltan T. was not a neo-Nazi militant or a neo-Nazi sympathizer, which are the two labels used by the listed sources?
Moreover, judging from the man of Template:According to whom the usage that you made of the tag seems just wrong. According to the man it should be used when no specific examples of identifiable individuals or groups are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs that appear in the tagged passage of the article; and it's explicitly specified that this tag shouldn't be used for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance. --Friniate ✉ 22:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Reading again the article I must correct myself on a detail: the two sources supporting the statement are this one (already present) and this one (present only at the end of the paragraph, but not immediately after the sentence we're talking about). If it's deemed necessary I can cite again the article on Repubblica. --Friniate ✉ 22:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for linking me a paywalled article. That really helps. WolfmanFP (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

And why is a communist newspaper considered to be a verifiable source? WolfmanFP (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@WolfmanFP Because third-party sources say so (and anyway it's not the only source). The fact that it's paywalled doesn't make it unreliable, see WP:PAYWALL. --Friniate ✉ 22:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Foreign (non-Hungarian) sources assumed that he was a Neo-Nazi militant, Hungarian news sites reported that he only wore camouflage at the time of the attack: https://hvg.hu/itthon/20240524_ilaria-salis-per-toth-zoltan-gazdagreti-tamadas WolfmanFP (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@WolfmanFP Judging from google translate, that article is just reporting Zoltan T.'s deposition without taking position on the matter... --Friniate ✉ 22:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Zoltán T. gave an interview for Magyar Jelen as well, where he explicitly states that he's not a Neo-Nazi: https://magyarjelen.hu/bunugy/16412-a-gazdagreti-tamadas-aldozata-szerint-is-terrorszervezette-kell-nyilvanitani-az-antifat I did not link it first, because this portal is connected to Our Homeland Movement, but this is the only interview he gave. WolfmanFP (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@WolfmanFP I understand, but obviously Zoltan T. is not an independent source about himself. Is there any reliable source that has deemed his claim reliable? --Friniate ✉ 23:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

We can add though what Zoltan T. said during the trial (with a clear attribution of his declarations to him), since reliable sources have reported it... --Friniate ✉ 23:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

No Hungarian source reported him being a Neo-Nazi militant, or the contrary. So if that's the case and no reliable source states explicitly that he's not a Neo-Nazi, then in the eyes of Wikipedia, he is? Both Repubblica and Il Manifesto states that he is, without proof. What's their proof? That's so weird about this whole thing. WolfmanFP (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@WolfmanFP Ok, I see your point. The fact that they don't cite a source is IMHO not decisive, since it's very uncommon that a newspaper article cites the sources as - let's say - a scholarly article would do, and usually the newspapers don't cite sources for these kind of statements. But it's true that at least a newspaper of the Hungarian opposition like HVG should have reported it, and with BLPs is always better to err on the side of caution. I'll add the in text attributions. --Friniate ✉ 23:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

On the other side I see that HVG doesn't mention any detail about the political allegiance of the victims... For example here it doesn't mention the fact that Dudog is a well-known neo-Nazi musician... So maybe after all the fact that they don't say anything about Zoltan T. is not so significant... --Friniate ✉ 00:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why are we talking about Dudog all of a sudden? Not just HVG, many sources didn't mention him being a Neo-Nazi musician, except for Klubrádió: https://www.klubradio.hu/hirek/egy-szelsojobboldali-zeneszt-is-bantalmaztak-a-hetvegen-132965 Let's focus on Zoltán T's case. WolfmanFP (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@WolfmanFP Well, since we are interpreting what the sources don't say, it becomes relevant... It's different if a source mentions the far-right background of all the victims except Zoltan T, or if it doesn't mention the background for any victim. In the first case we could consider it a proof of at least a significant doubt over the fact that this assertion is correct, in the second case we can't draw any conclusion whatsoever. --Friniate ✉ 00:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I am fucking done with this. Do whatever you want, I am too tired of arguing with you. WolfmanFP (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added T.'s testimony during the trial. I've also changed the label following a new source that I found, an article by ANSA, a press agency formed by various Italian newspapers of different ideological tendencies, which is prettty much the most neutral thing that you can find in the Italian press. --Friniate ✉ 13:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add informations from reliable Hungarian sources like HVG I've no objections of course, I'm not using them since as a personal rule I don't add sources written in languages that I don't know. --Friniate ✉ 13:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)