Talk:Jobbik

Hi everybody! The Jobbik got the new ideology, and new colors. Their colours is turquoise, because in the Facebook, they created a new color, which is the turquoise blue color. The new ideology is the Liberal conservatism, Christian democracy, and the Pro-Europeanism. Márton Gyöngyösi, the Jobbik's politican said, the party is wanted to go the European People's Party, but the EPP's politicans are refused their offer, to let the Jobbik join the EPP European Party Group, and that's why the Jobbik is not Eurosceptic anymore, and changed the ideology to Pro-Europeanism. The Our Homeland Movement party is Eurosceptic, not Pro-Europeanism, said by László Toroczkai, the former Jobbik politican. So, the Jobbik is now Pro-European party, and Centre-Right party, not Far-Right, and not Radical party anymore. I hope the EPP politicans will let the Jobbik join the European People's Party Group. --TomFZ67 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The 2018-2022 Jobbik party programme, called "Magyar Szívvel, Józan Ésszel, Tiszta Kézzel" (Hungarian Hearts, Common Sense, Clean Hands), is used on the Hungarian page of Jobbik to claim the party is 'green socialist'. It does include a section on 'building an eco-social economy' (Az ökoszociális nemzetgazdaság kiépítésének szükségessége), which would fit green conservatism more seeming as Jobbik is still conservative but not far-right as it used to be.^[1] Should green conservatism be added to the party ideology infobox, and seeming how in the previous discussion (Talk:Jobbik#Jobbik's new ideology, and new colors) references also state its support for the EU, maybe Pro-Europeanism could be added as well. MatryoshkaNL (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@MatryoshkaNL: We can include green conservationism in the info box;
but I would wait for the position on the EU because in 2018/2019 (where this transformation process started) it sounded like Soft Euroscepticism, so I would leave it out like with Five Star Movement Braganza (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Now when the party is a necessary tool to get rid of the larger evil which is Victor Orban from a left-wing view point many people on wikipedia share Jobbik is no longer "far-right extremist" but "conservative". Is that really objective or some kind of left-wing propaganda?

93.206.58.139 (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

did you saw that there is now Our Homeland Movement? Braganza (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Jobbik is no longer a member of the United for Hungary alliance, said by Márton Gyöngyösi and Ágnes Kunhalmi. Gyöngyösi is said, that the Jobbik is separated from the left-wing alliance, and the Jobbik is going for independetly to the future elections, like the 2024 European parliamentary election, and the 2024 Hungarian local elections. I've edited the United for Hungary page, that the Jobbik is left from the alliance, and they are no longer member of that left-wing alliance. I've writed to the page, the Former parties words. KovZXad1970 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

I think the ideology of the party has been discussed to some extent here on this talk page, but I do not see an clear outcome.

In any case the source clearly states:

"Hungary was once the forerunner of democratic performance but since the 2010 and 2014 elections, is run by a populist far right party (Fidesz), with a populist extreme right party (Jobbik) as the official opposition." (6th row, "Introduction" paragraph)

If better sources than Cambridge are available, please let me know. Else, this is what we should go by, not the propaganda the party is promoting about itself. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01,

And where is the "ultranationalist" text?

Fidesz is National conservatism, populist, I see some authors like to use the "far right" word

http://parties-and-elections.eu/hungary.html

"populist extreme right party (Jobbik)" I do not see "extreme far right" word together, and what about the many other sources?

Do you think it is ok to use an outdated 2010-14 data? As you want write that is the present day situation in 2023 after almost 10 years. Maximum you can write as past. I bet you really do not know anything about today political situation in Hungary regarding Jobbik. It was indeed far right in the past, but since some years it is totally changed.

It is strange that you want to position the 21st Hungarian parties as more extreme than the really extreme ultranationalist Nazi Party, National Fascist Party, Arrow Cross Party, Iron Guard which caused a lot of death and massacres.

Interesting that this Romanian far right Alliance for the Union of Romanians party is not "extreme" just far right, I bet you know their activities better than me, that party are doing many anti-Hungarian things and things against local Hungarians. 1 example among many: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zlCXSE90rQ I do not know this kind of local ethnic conflict would have been ever made by the long time ruling "ultra extrem far right nationalist" Fidesz in Hungary. I do not see "ultranationlist" things in the main article, far-right is just an opinion. Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈfidɛs]; Hungarian: Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség) is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary, led by Viktor Orbán.

Its majority of seats remained after the 2014 election, and following the escalation of the migrant crisis, Fidesz began using right-wing populist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Since its inception, its political position has changed drastically, and Fidesz is now positioned as a right-wing or far-right party. Political scientists have described the party's governance as illiberal or authoritarian, with Orbán describing their model of government as "Christian illiberal democracy".

As I said, yourself use exclusively nationalist Romanian sources in your contents, despite you have deep obsession about the Hungarian nationalism. :D However the Romanian nationalism was almost always bigger than the Hungarian one, a good testimony of many events what happened and happen with the local Hungarians in Romania by the Romanian nationalism. Basically the strong and always stronger Romanian nationalism created the Hungarian one. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

Interesting that the main body of your argument is comprised of whataboutism, assumptions, and false accusations. Did I strike too close to home or is this another case like the attempt to remove two entries that you didn't like from an article about a TV show? Anyhow, those lines in your reply are neither central nor logical, so excuse me if I do not address them.

The central point is, and I ask again, do we have a better source for describing the party's political view than the one Cambridge University Press published online in 2020?

PS: I am considering rewriting the ideology part as it relies mostly on party propaganda not external sources. Would that be a problem for you? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aristeus01

1. Jobbik started as a far-right party, but by now it has cut all connections with nationalist guards, fired radical members and started to cooperate with left-wing liberal and social democratic parties. It's incorrect to call it "extreme far-right". So far I have seen no pogroms... or even a street fight between a Jobbik voter or member and a minority person.
2. I think "far-right" can't be more exacerbated. "Far" and "extreme" are synonyms . And if Jobbik is "extreme far-right", what is the NSDAP? Astronomic giga mega super duper monster far-right?
3. Please read the first sentence of the Far-right politics article. Jobbik doesn't declare that Hungary should oppose development and return to old customs. (Ultraconservatism) Jobbik doesn't declare that Hungarians are a superior nation. (Ultranationalism) Jobbik doesn't declare that Hungary should become a dictatorship and not a democratic republic what it is. (Authoritarianism)

Gyalu22 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gyalu22

Don't get me wrong, I do not disagree with criticism to media criticism of Jobbik ideology in general but the general idea of the article published by Cambridge is that the party runs on populism, adopting a far right, then an extreme right position, and recently a conservative position only in opposition with Fidesz Party.

The main point of the critique is that the party is still largely composed of the same members, bar the Mi Hazánk dissidents, so it could turn back to extreme views any time if they consider it's advantageous.

An interesting point when discussing Hungarian political parties comes from the same source:

"A grave consequence of Fidesz’ ongoing electoral success and both parties on the radical right sharing similar policy platforms is what scholars like Feischmidt and Hervik (Reference Feischmidt and Hervik

2015) call a ‘mainstreaming of the extreme’, where nationalist and racialized frames normally of the far right move centre and become normalised in public and policy discourse."

in other words, Fidesz, Jobbik, Our Homeland, all rely on same pool, with different nuances. Their current ideology can change depending on how they recon they could gain more votes than the other two.

Respectfully, Jobbik does declare Hungarians as a "superior" nation. Not in the "arian" sense, but in political manner: Hungarians are better than Roma (recently watered down), than Jews (this has been retracted, it's true) but most importantly conservatism in Jobbik takes strong cultural form, a trait that has always been linked to far right. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a populist party was communist yesterday, is liberal today and will possibly be fascist tomorrow. We have to write down its current ideology. The day Jobbik will become extremist again you or I will change its ideology in the introduction.

I follow Hungarian politics, but I never heard that Jobbik declared Hungarians to be better than Romani or Jews. But even if it did in the past, that has nothing to do with its current message. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there was a famous interview where Gyöngyösi suggested Hungarian Jews in Parliament should be on a surveillance list, retracted of course very quickly. But true, that was long time ago. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that since Jobbik began moving towards a more general conservatism and soft pro-EU stances, at least three parties have split from Jobbik. Civic Response took with it christian democrats opposed to working with parties to the left of Jobbik, Force and Determination took with it members with openly racist sentiments, and Our Homeland Movement took with it much of the ultranationalist, right-wing populist and neo-fascist old-guard. The latter of these three has parliamentary representation. Simply put, much of the extremist and far-right sentiments of Jobbik is no longer within the party anymore. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Aristeus01

Today is almost 2024.That source refers to "2010 and 2014" period, and the source was published 3+ years ago in the beginning of 2020. I am aware that there are many opinions about the party, there are also already many sources regarding the similar things in the topic, this source fits better for the historical section, that is why I moved there to the other similar content. That party was far right in the past, it is inaccurate to show this outdated info in lead as present what is actually different now, or we can add the far right past in the lead, but I see this is there already. The party changed, the party is the best ally of liberal parties, the name, logo, members... changed, and lost significant voters.

However you added this first "extreme far right" and but the text is "extreme right", the Nazy party is just "far right" in the article :D it is funny that you try to pretend that a Hungarian party or his deeds can be more extreme than Hitler and Nazis.

Note, as my experience here, with you every Hungarian is ultranationalist who does not accept obediently the (illogical) ultranationalist Daco-Roman livingspace theory which developed that the "always superior majority, super ancient, more civilized" Romanians (no source about Romanians in the region before 13th century^[1]) should rule a huge area between Tisza-Dneister river as superior race. The main target was Hungary. Based of this irredentist ideology Romania several times attacked Hungary and finally got many full Hungarian populated regions by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. Which means the Romanian irredentism and nationalism created the Hungarian nationalism and irredentism. Based on this ideology ultranationalist Romanians several times massacred Hungarians (for example Avram Iancu, who is national hero in Romania, settlements, streets, university bear his name, he and his men massacred uprooted complete Hungarian settlements with extraordinary cruelty, killing pregnant women, sawing limbs, etc.. in 2023 Romania declared 2023 a commemorative year of Avram Iancu, this tell a lot about the level of nationalism there) This ultranationalist ideology was the base of the suppress of local Hungarians who got under Romanian rule since 100 years (most suppress was under the national communist Ceaușescu regime), today also very common in Romania: "Do not speak Hungarian!" "Hungarians, get out of the country!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zlCXSE90rQ Romanian historiography with the Daco-Roman theory produced a lot of absurd fake maps to justify the territorial claims againts Hungary. Romania in the 9-13th century by Romanian historiography: fake map from 1920: Dacia!? in the 9-13th century [11] fake map from 1980s from the national-communist times, Romania 9-13th century: [10] fake modern map, Romania 9-13th century: [9] If you see international Europe maps, you will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] Those maps which made by Romanian historiography is clearly a falsifications and abuse of the international and Hungarian historiography, because in the reality this "Romania country" did not exist, which occupied the half territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9-13th century in those maps. In 1980s in the national-communist Romania, the Romanian state celebrated its 2050th anniversary... Here you put a 100 years old map with this caption "Romanian settlements 9th-14th Century" (800-1400), however the original title: "Romanians based on toponyms" not only the map by the provided caption by him is also a falsification. That map falsify the history of more countries: Hungary + Croatia + East Czech land, but the main target is the Hungarian history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1152091631

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1152091631#/media/File:Romanian_settlements,_9th-14th_Century.jpg

This is an international medieval Europe map from 1190: Kingdom of Hungary in the center, just I show to see the position of the above mentioned fake map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Europe_mediterranean_1190_cropped.jpg You wanted to put a map where hundred of settlements are allegedly "Romanian settlements between 800-1400" in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary, (and Croatia), especially many "settlements" in west Hungary (some regions today's Austria) and in north Hungary (today's Slovakia). You said that I am "outdated pseudo-scientific" when reverted it :D I think these things above is very extreme far right... Interesting that this Romanian far right Alliance for the Union of Romanians party is not "extreme" just far right, I bet you know their activities better than me, that party are doing many anti-Hungarian things and things against local Hungarians OrionNimrod (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

A funny guy! Funny enough to try and delete names from a list in a TV show because it contradicts his opinion on what should be there. :D

Another joke was using the author of the said map to justify his opinion when it suits him and denying the author's competency when it didn't. Logic! :D

Another joke is continuously promoting Turanism while criticising Dacianism, as if there is more "scientific" value in one than the other because "mine is better", I guess.

It's all fun and jokes, the list goes on, and one better laugh otherwise one might get labelled with the worst tag he can think of: "you are a nationalist communist". Aristeus01 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aristeus01, that was my mistake, later I recognized that was just a TV show. But that list tells a lot about the level of nationalism in Romania, however you always worry about the Hungarian nationalism. King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary as Romanian king? :D What he did for Romania? This remember me Gheorghe Funar the notorius anti-Hungarian Romanian mayor placed a board illegal on front of the statue of King Matthias: "He was victorious in the battle, he only suffered a defeat from his own nation at Baia, when he went against the invincible Moldavia." I really do not know that Moldavia how can be the “own nation” of the Hungarian king, and I do not know what does mean “invincible” if Moldavia became the vassal of Matthias after the battle and all source from the court of Matthias claim that battle was the victory of Matthias. Funar, presidential candidate said in the Romanian public service radio's election program in 2014: "We Romanians have a unique trump card in foreign policy, as the historical truth is that we are descendants of the primary people of planet Earth. The Geta-Dacians are the ancestors of all the peoples of the planet. This is the historical truth. So we need to enlighten everyone about this truth. For example, the Swedes and Danes already know this, as these countries were called Dacia a thousand years ago. Today's Germany is called Deutschland in German, which translates to Dacia" He also said that the Dacians built the Egyptian pyramids.:D This is the Romanian nationalist custom to claim Hungarian history characters as own like Pop Aurel wrote "Hunyadi wanted to create a Dacian bloc from the 3 Romanian countries" I would be curious from where he get it and Translyvania in 1400s was not a Romanian country just from 1920. I wonder I do not see king Saint Stephen of Hungary on the list as ultranationalist Romanians claim he was also a Romanian king. I can see on that list Ceaușescu, Avram Iancu (genocide, the Hungarian slaugther) and after the communist dictator claimed that he is the incarnation of Burebista and Decebalus I am not wonder that Romania state celebrated the 2050th anniversary by him...I bet those Dacians rulers did not know that they are Romanians.

Another joke was using the author of the said map to justify his opinion when it suits him and denying the author's competency when it didn't.

The author does not wrote that label on that map what you invented.

I do not know exatcly what is the Turanism, I do not edit Turkic things. I edit mostly medieval Hungarians things, and genetic things which is science. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aristeus01, I think there was a famous interview where Gyöngyösi suggested Hungarian Jews in Parliament should be on a surveillance list, retracted of course very quickly. It is doubtless that in every country has strange things. Just in the examples I showed the Romanian nationalism is much stronger than the Hungarian one and at the moment not the Romanians get bad treatments from Hungarians but the local Hungarians in Romania several times which is also indicate which nationalism is stronger, interesing but in Austria the Hungarian minorty get no harm. Btw for example in Israel, USA and in many countries the parliamient members should reveal how many nationalities they have, because it is national security question. I think this is understandable. Israel jurisprudence: the representatives have to decide in such a case: they renounce their other citizenship or their mandate. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support changing back to centre-right based on the following 2020s sources:

• The Economist: "the formerly far-right, though now centre-right, Jobbik party" https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/10/03/a-by-election-shows-why-hungarys-opposition-struggles
• BBC: "the formerly far-right, now centre-right, Jobbik" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58949864
• Al Jazeera: "the formerly far right, now centre right, Jobbik" https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/17/political-outsider-to-stand-against-orban-in-hungarys-2022-vote
• Reuters: "the formerly far-right, now centre-right, Jobbik" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/orbans-fidesz-extends-lead-over-hungary-opposition-two-percentage-points-poll-2022-03-23/
• Financial Times: "the centre-right Jobbik party" https://www.ft.com/content/e7f078d6-99c3-4962-9762-9c901c45431a
• Foreign Policy: "the center-right Jobbik" https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/20/hungary-opposition-election-marki-zay-fidesz-orban/

Several of these sources are actually bizarrely already in the infobox to justify 'right-wing', despite 'right-wing' not being mentioned in them. Jay942942 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)