Talk:György Ekrem-Kemál

pro-MSZP?
An annotation next to the first link, a WSWS (Trotskyist) article, reads: "Note that the article is of strong general pro-MSZP point of view". Apparently the annotator hasn't read the article. Some select quotes (Gyurcsany is the MSZP leader):
 * "The taped speech shows the level of contempt and arrogance on the part of Gyurcsany and his government with regard to the population."
 * "Gyurcsany is a typical representative of such forces, who at the time of the collapse of the Stalinist system shamelessly looted public property, enriched themselves and now exclusively regard themselves as defenders of the interests of the major enterprises and the rich. Under conditions in which poverty and unemployment spread rapidly, Gyurcsany established the basis for his own fortune through the so-called 'wild privatisations' of state property carried out at the beginning of the 1990s."
 * "The openness with which Gyurcsany has expressed his contempt for his own voters may be unusual; but such contempt is a commonplace for many other contemporary politicians—and not just in Hungary. Compared with the lies told to justify the Iraq war by his role model, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Gyurcsany is still an amateur."

The article is relentlessly (some may say excessively) critical of Gyurcsany and the MSZP, repeatedly putting scare-quotes around "Socialist" in the party's name. For obvious reasons, the article is also critical of the far-right reactions to his corruption and lies. The only possible logic that would permit someone to characterize the article as reflecting a "strong general pro-MSZP point of view" is to prefix: "compared with the fascist riots the article has a strong general pro-MSZP point of view. This ideological misrepresentation from the fascist "perspective" undermines the credibility of the article, functions as subtle fascist propaganda, and has no place on a site that stresses NPOV. I will remove it and hope that such disappointing propagandist 'bias evaluations' do not reappear.

Alexmunger (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hungarism
There should be a proper article on Hungarism. Without one I linked in the article on the Arrow Cross Party, but this is historically imprecise. However I lack the knowledge in history and etimology to make up a sensible artice. Somebody pls make one.


 * Agree. I will work on creating it. Alexmunger (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi?
(Moved this opinion from the main article to conform with rules.)

Not neo-nazi... No comment. Or else put it out! Don't try to flame the peaceful protests!

As far as I remember he was convinced for anti-state criminal activities (planning a plot against democratic state administration).


 * He was convicted for such activities, yes. I don't quite understand your comment, but all scholarly historical accounts of his party and its activities I have seen use the term (or its Hungarian equivalents). If you mean to say that you don't believe Hungarism to be specifically a neo-Nazi movement, that is a discussion to be had on an article about those ideologies, not a encyclopedia biography of one of their self-described adherents. --Alexmunger (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)