Talk:Magyar Hírlap

Controversial publications
Who or what is Fidesz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.88.40 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section
We have been through this debate with the editors concerned, who wote in this article. We came to the conclusion, that focusing on only this sentence, and omitting the context is Soapboxing, not neutral.Feel free to add Your argument.--Ltbuni (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I also contributed to this article, and have never agreed that the information I removed was appropriate to this topic, or respectful of a whole number of core Wikipedia policies. Here are the main problems:


 * 1) Bayer's piece was widely covered (and condemned) in the international press, but that coverage does not mention.
 * 1a - "the lynching of an innocent driver, Lajos Szögi" (one source, no mention of Bayer or Magyar Hírlap)
 * 1b - "the brutal murder of Marian Cozma" (unsourced)
 * 1c - "the backstabbing of the Romani boxer Gergely Sávoly" (unsourced)
 * 1d - "etc" (unsourced)
 * None of additions include a source mentioning Bayer: they come straight out of your own head, are pure WP:OR, and written from a right-wing xenophobic and nationalist perspective that is the definition of WP:POV-pushing and prohibited by WP:ARBEE sanctions.


 * 2) International coverage of Bayer's piece did not quote at great length. It has been added here as a primary source, and does nothing except give voice to his internationally condemned and insulting views. The comments are not supported by WP:RS, and are a textbook example of WP:UNDUE: turning the entire article about Magyar Hírlap into a right-wing, WP:SOAPBOX rant. This is also in breach of WP:ARBEE proscriptions.


 * There are very strong sources to briefly and neutrally describe the Bayer controversy, and those are what we should use. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Bayer is really not a nice person. But even he deserves fair treatment. The problem is that Mr Bayer wrote his piece as a part of a series, and unfortunately the previous parts DID contain references.
 * - " the brutal murder of Marian Cozma" and "the backstabbing of the Romani boxer Gergely Sávoly" (unsourced) are in the text/quotation itself of Mr. Bayer. I don't see why we should follow those international sources which did not give back the real words of Mr. Bayer, when we have the WHOLE text available. BTW, if You quote only the incriminated sentences, it falsly gives an impression, 'cause Mr. Sávoly is Romani himself, so there is a contradiction, what is more Mr. Bayer praised himself Romani people in the very same article.


 * He was fined for 250 000Ft, but not charged.


 * Sources:
 * Magyar Hírlap, 2013. január 5
 * https://www.flagmagazin.hu/jobbegyenes/bayer-zsolt-ki-ne-legyen
 * http://mandiner.hu/cikk/20130105_bayer_zsolt_ki_ne_legyen
 * http://www.hungarianambiance.com/2013/01/bayer-zsolt-ki-ne-legyen.html


 * And they did not "come out of my own head and written from a right-wing xenophobic and nationalist perspective", because I was able to read the article. You are not. And please assume good faith! --Ltbuni (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * can you take the Bayer quote that you've put into the "controversy" section, and try to make it even shorter, but still convey what you consider to be Bayer's central argument? This will help when formulating an RfC - the more concise your text is, the more likely independent, neutral observers on Wikipedia will support its inclusion. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, and I did not want give the impression as if I did some canvassing. We, the editors from Hungary, do not cooperate in this manner. If I said something wrong/insulting to You, I apologize.


 * Ok, Bayer's text is obviously racist. He was upset - as in the beginning of the article he himself wrote, he got angry, after a bunch of romani group had attacked a romani boxer, Gergely or Gergő Sávoly - it reminded him of the infamous stabbing when romani guys stabbed to death Marian Cozma. Somehow we should add this context, because this gives a context - however not an excuse for what he wrote!!

How about this one?

January 5, 2013 Bayer in an opinion piece - stressing the ressemblance between the death of Marian Cozma, and the case of the recently stabbed romani boxer Gergely Sávoly - called "a considerable portion of the gypsies" as "animals", "unfit to live among people"  "potential murderers" who "should not exist", and whose problem "must be solved - immediately and now matter how". The article generated negative reactions all over in Europe.[8] The Hungarian National Media and Infocommunications Authority fined the journal for 250 000 Forints, and ordered the removal of the content from the Internet. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi conceivably, people could object because this relies on the original article - a primary source. Nevertheless I don't think it's too bad. What do you think of my edit to your proposal? It shortens it slightly, and changes the grammar a little.

What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OK.--Ltbuni (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I implemented this change, using extensive inline references. If you know a source for the fine, maybe you could add it? -Darouet (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I am looking for it.--Ltbuni (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Stabbing

 * Thank You for Your edit. I am sorry, but You are wrong. The whole article itself began with this sentence: 2013 egy újabb Cozma-üggyel indult . In English: "The year of 2013 started with a new case of Marian Cozma". Mr. Sávoly survived the attack, and now is alive. --Ltbuni (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)