Talk:Arrow Cross Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fascism mischarachterization[edit]

Why is it called "Fascist"? The Nyilas were National-Socialists. "Fascist became a broad accusatory term with strong implications of right-wing politics. Hannah Arendt clearly states that Fascism is fundamentally different from Nazism, mainly viz. racial supremacy theories. At least in that regard the Arrow-Cross are far closer to Nazism than Fascism. This is another left-wing wikipropanganda (wikistortion of reality). As an aside, the vast majprity of the Nyilas party later became the high command of Hungarian communism.

In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[Carsten, Francis Ludwig The Rise of Fascism, 2nd ed. University of California Press, 1982. p. 137] And just in case you think Carsten must in on some grand conspiracy to redefine fascism as right-wing by here misquoting Hitler, here's the words of Mussolini himself, the man to whom many ascribe the development of early notions of fascism into the political movement we're more familiar with: In fact it was his expertise on the subject that compelled the editors of a 1932 edition of an Italian encyclopedia set to ask him for the definition of a new entry on Fascism. "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism." So there you have both Hitler and Mussolini contradicting the absurd notion of left-wing fascism. --Mycos 11:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycos (talk • contribs)

Your suggestion is that the use of the term fascist is implying the Arrow Cross were right-wing? I'm not sure how you'd call that a distortion of reality. I'd like to see your source that the majority of the party became the high command of Hungarian communism. - TheMightyQuill 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The communist parties and especially the propaganda of the Eastern Bloc avoided the use of the term "national socialism" and used "fascist" even in the case of the Third Reich (which was expressly national socialist). Maybe the socialist governments felt unconvenient to use the term "national socialism" when referring to their enemy (interestingly, the name of the National Socialist German Workers Party borders on the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, which is even more obtrusive if we compare the peacetime practises of the two parties). The Arrow Cross Party and its ideology called Hungarism is much more related to national socialism than fascism - if related to the latter at all. Timur lenk (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism#Differences_and_similarities_with_Nazism doesn't seem to support your arguments. First of all, it suggests that national socialism is generally accepted to be a form of fascism. Second, can it clearly be said that Nyilas put race before the state? I'm not sure. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarianism[edit]

Why the hell is it called "Hungarianism"? "Hungarianism" would mean "Magyarizmus". "Hungarism" means "Hungarizmus". It isn't the same.

Ideology[edit]

Ideology Far-right, Ultranationalism, Fascism, National socialism, Hungarism, Hungarian Turanism, Agrarianism, Roman Catholicism

How their ideology could be a "fascism" and "national socialism" at the same time while both ideologies are very different? It doesn't make any sense... "Roman Catholicism" - I didn't know that RC is a ideology.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with pic[edit]

In the Ideology section, the pic covers some of the words that are supposed to be above the pic. I have no idea how to fix it.--Anewpester (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revisions re. Jewish deaths[edit]

I propose to make a few revisions to increase the accuracy of statements about the number of Jews murdered during the Arrow Cross period.Hirschjoshua (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Arrow Cross Turanist?[edit]

I wonder this subject,ıs this right?Was Arrow Cross Party both Turanist and National Socialist?Please examine and search this,I wonder this so much.


MuratOZCAN94 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)I wonder this subject,ıs this right?Was Arrow Cross Party both Turanist and National Socialist?Please examine and search this,I wonder this so much.MuratOZCAN94 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turanism doesn't mention this party and Turanism was anti-German.Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turanism was also anti-European, and it cnsidered the mongoloid race superior to the european people. Funny things, that Hungarians have the lowest ratio of mongoloid asian admixture in former communist block countries in Europe.--Liltender (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They did not speak about mongoloid race, they spoke about Turanian race.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arrow Cross Party. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arrow Cross Party. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist[edit]

Far right is exteremely unprecise. Many sources say fascist. The flag was based on NSDAP, which prove Nazi bias.Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They were precisely Hungarists with ideas as "connationalism", that even the Germans hardly understood what it means. I would systematically replace "fascist" with "Hungarists" and explain more detailed the term here or in an own article.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
It's their opinion, which should be confronted with academic sources.
There existed perhaps an acceptable theory, but their rules were Nazi. Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While they certainly had their own Hungarian mythology, they are generally classified as fascists - e.g. Payne, Stanley. "Fascism." Comparison and Definition, Madison (1980): 7.. Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am always sticking to precisity and accuracy, even if academic sources contain possible mistakes or are lazy. Many comparison may be done with "fascist" or "Nazi", though they had also a big recension and dislike to German hegemony or intervention or some politics and activities, at the same time they supported each other openly or internationally in some questions. I would not call necessarily Turanist although they shared some view of it, the leader worked much to build a total unique "Hungarist" terminology with it's special interpretation, made in written similar to "Mein Kampf".(KIENGIR (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Also checking recently other articles, some make a designation like "National-Socialist" party, etc, none of the precisely correct, regardless both this ideology and from fascism were also taken elements...thus the designation from the lead I move to the ideology section, and would go on with improvements already introduced in the infobox, as Hungarism redirects here.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Dear IP, please stop this deletion, removal, re-adding...as you may see the above discussion, the proper description would be as ideology "Hungarist", this is not yet expanded or explained in Wikipedia, thus those ideologises are listed where from "Hungarism" was established...national socializm is one of them, so it cannot be abandoned currently. Please stop removal! Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Retkes[edit]

In one week, I propose to delete material drawn from the following source: Retkes Tamás, A katonai akadémiától a bitóig - Szálasi Ferenc élete, 2007. It appears to me that this book was self-published by an explicitly pro-Szálasi apologist, and thus would not qualify as a legitimate source.

The material in question is as follows: ...a more accurate comparison might be drawn between Austrofascism and Hungarian Turanism which was called Hungarism by Ferenc Szálasi – nationalism, the promotion of agriculture, anti-capitalism, anti-communism and a special type of anti-Semitism, called a-Semitism. This term was explained and described in the series of the four books of Hungarism written by Szálasi, it meant they support a society completely absent of Jews - in their interpretation contrary to anti-Semitism, that would nominally allow their existence with limited rights in the society - that should not be confused necessarily with original hatred, but rather their incompatibility to the regional culture, however this view was meant and extended to all the Semitic peoples.Hirschjoshua 4 August 2019

I read the book, it not an "apologist" book, but a valuable work with many information. But even if you'd object it, it would not change the material, since also without that source it holds, as it is part also other works.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, please provide an alternative source published by a reputable publisher.Hirschjoshua (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it would be a necessity and what's your reason to recurrently flipbustering this on varying invented reasons. The fact that the self-alleged special ideology of the party/Szálasi is presented, is totally ok regardless how much it is discussed, understood, researched or reviewed abroad, it does not mean we may not publish as well the opinion of other people/authors of their ideology. Also regarding the Nazi party or similar articles, racial theories, doctrines, etc. their evaluation are present, should we like or not, should they look weird/horrible etc. Especially the same author also wrote other books in that field ([1] see here), the quality is rated by 6 stars (3x 4.0, 3x 5.0) in one of the most known booksite of the country. So please do not be afraid that we refer or cite from a "layman scribbler". Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The policy is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works
It states: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available. Examples of acceptable sourcing of self-published works:
1. A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself.
2. Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
3. A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published."
Retkes’ book does not meet any of these criteria.Hirschjoshua (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the author has no claims or limitations of usage, it is recurrently cited, on the other hand not just doctoral dissertations refert to it [2] (Eötvös Loránd University), but also part of the references & publications ([3]) of Sándor Szakály, who is the leader of the History Commitee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (having several other functions of notable institutions).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I see no evidence of previous historical scholarship by Retkes that was published by a reliable third-party publication. Unless you can find such evidence, he is not an acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy.Hirschjoshua (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I'll do I referred earlier.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Ideology (yet again)[edit]

Thank you, KIENGIR.

I would now like to raise some additional questions about edits I believe you made.

1. “The party's ideology was similar to that of German Nazism or Fascism,[10] although a more accurate comparison might be drawn between Austrofascism and Hungarian Turanism which was called Hungarism by Ferenc Szálasi…”

What is your source for comparing Austrofascism and Hungarian Turanism?

2. What is the similarity between Austrofascism and Hungarian Turanism? You seem to be saying it’s that they shared “nationalism, the promotion of agriculture, anti-capitalism, anti-communism and a special type of anti-Semitism, called a-Semitism.” But in the case of a-Semitism that doesn’t make sense because, according to Austrofascism#Minimal antisemitism, “There was no official policy of antisemitism between 1933 and 1938. Public violence against Jews was rare.”

3. According to Hungarian Turanism, Szálasi’s ideology was only one form it took. The other forms seem to me quite different from Szálasi’s. That makes me question whether Hungarian Turanism is really the most fitting ideology to compare it to.

4. What is your source for this: “…that should not be confused necessarily with original hatred…” Is that your analysis or is it stated by Szálasi?

5. I am planning to restore “Fascism” to the infobox under “Ideology.” Do you deny that many sources published by mainstream publishers describe the Arrow Cross Party as fascist?Hirschjoshua (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
1. The comparison of Austrofascism and Hungarian Turanism have no connection to me, it was already there, thus we may remove Autrofascism.
2. Per the before point, that editor should explain who added it.
3. This is the point, that Szálasi's ideology (= Hungarist ideology) drawn/merged sometimes from different theories, but better to say different aspects of even related theories, hence it may be hardly interpreted or understood at fist glance who did not studied if properly. The drawn from Hungarian Turnaism is relevant, since the ideology treated it as a discting race, inlcuding Turkic and Finnic people, etc.
4. In Szálasi's long book(s) about the ideology of Hungarism and the Jewish question is discussed more times recurrently, take it as a close pharaphrasing/summarizing of the views of the ideology (i.e., they also did not want Arabs in the society the same reason explained, but they highlighted the Jewish question per as a mainstream issue those times)
5. Please don't do that, because it would be inaccurate, expressis verbis their ideology was Hungarism, and it is explained what it meant. Just because mainstream publishers are ignorant and/or not really learned/informed and lazily label things inappropriately, should not make this encyclopedia less punctuate or reliable. Also the books written of their ideology, Hungarism were also processed later, the other famous is "Szálasi Naplója" (The Diary of Szálasi) that was issued by Karsai Elek ISBN 9630911159 is as well discussing the details of Hungarism.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
4. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe your response answers my question about your statement that Szálasi’s a-Semitism should not be confused with “original hatred.” If Szálasi stated in his book that he did not hate the Jews, please provide a quote and page number citation. If he didn’t, then this is your interpretation and should be deleted according to WP:NOR. The question of whether Szálasi’s ideology amounted to hatred of the Jews is a very important point, and this statement should only remain in the article if written explicitly by Szálasi or another valid published source.
I also thought of a related question. The term “a-Semitism”: did Szálasi use a word in Hungarian that translates as a-Semitism, or is this a word that you invented?
5. Since you concede that many sources published by mainstream publishers describe the Arrow Cross Party as fascist, I will restore it to the infobox. Your argument that these sources are wrong contradicts WP:NOR.Hirschjoshua (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hirschjoshua,
I kindly ask you to refrain yourself of considering I would be the inventOR of sentences, opinions or phrases. I have quite a relevant wiki experience not to fall of the trap of WP:OR, etc. but it seems you don't have the sufficient, professional and deep knowledge of this particular subject. I am not just well-educated, learned or informed in the related subjects of this field and the history of Hungary, but I carefully learned and investigate the topic, works I referred and read the more hundred pages of the books (that seem you surely did not...). Thus:
4. "your statement that Szálasi’s a-Semitism should not be confused with “original hatred.”" -> I did not made such statement, you are failing necessary precisity, This is the statement: it meant they support a society completely absent of Jews - in their interpretation contrary to anti-Semitism, that would nominally allow their existence with limited rights in the society - that should not be confused necessarily with original hatred. However, on the contrary of your unique and strange interpretation, the stress pattern is on necessarily, that means you cannot conclude from the sentence that he did not hate Jews (= the dislike/hatred was not founded on just being Jewish, but their adherence, integration and conformity to the society, in Europe or anywhere else, as having the same latter view for Arabs or any other nations, cultures that are not considered aboriginal in Europe, but in fact they didn't wish or vowed of complete extermination of those races, but may support their existence in the areas where they stem or culturally belong according to them, Asia, etc.). I suggest you to read the books I referred and again, any single person who entirely reads the ideology, this summarization is evident and famous, thus it is NOT my interpretation and has nothing to do with OR.
4.Related -> Again, a ridicoulus charge of my "supposed inventions". Obviously not, the term aszemitizmus is generally and openly known by every scholar or any single person who just superficially analyzed Szálasi's works or the ideology of the Arrow Cross Party (again a striking evidence that you'd really need to dig into yourself to the subject professionally and read some related books and works, before you'd make such impossible charges, excuse me).
5. No, again, please don't do that because as I just said, your plan does not serve accuracy, and in WP the are famous cases when the mainstream sources fail accuracy in very important and relevant cases, then the solution is that we cite sources that are accurate and favor them. If you don't do like so, people would assume you are not interested in an accurate encyclopedia, or by some other reason you'd wish to conceal that the idology of the Arrow Cross Party that was undisputedly the Hungarist ideology, that is backed and supported all relevant (= valuable, valid, serious, professional scholarly) works in the subject. Again you refer here WP:NOR, that is totally inaccurate, I presented to valuable and professional surces that undisputedly and clearly proves the fact that the ideology was Hungarism, that not just the fact but supported by 4 books of the author (= Szálasi) itself but the Hungarian historiography and between 1944-1945 it was rendered on state level - The Hungarist State (Let's call a spade a spade). As well it is not an excuse that you cannot read Hungarian, just read at least Karsai Elek's ([1], ([2])) famous process and book on the subject, or at least seek a translation or ask a friend to translate to you. (moreover, if you check as well Karsai's biography as well, he published and researched many many works on the broader subject as well, being a historian and having official access to the archives, and finished the Budapest University of Jewish Studies, among others, so please...)(KIENGIR (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for explaining about the term “aszemitizmus.” I’m sorry, I should have Googled it.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your statement about “original hatred.” The problem is that your writing in English is not fluent and is sometimes confusing. I do not intend this as a personal insult, merely an observation about the style of your writing in English. The fact is, I still don’t precisely understand your explanation of what you are trying to say about “original hatred.” And if I don’t understand it, I would assume many other readers also don’t understand it. Could you possibly find someone to write this section for you more clearly?
If you are not familiar with it, I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Competence is required: “There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English language Wikipedia have the following competencies: the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively. It does not mean one must be a native English speaker. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others. If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post a change request on the article talk page.”
Regarding fascism, the question is not whether the Arrow Cross Party was Hungarist. I accept that it was. The question is whether it was fascist in addition to being Hungarist. If many reliable, contemporary, published sources describe the Party as fascist, then as a Wikipedia editor, you may not merely state that these sources are inaccurate; that would be original research. The question is, what reliable, published sources argue that the Party was not fascist?Hirschjoshua (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hirschjoshua, sure.
Ok, competence is required - I was thinking also about this, however the opposite direction towards you, as I referred above in order to enter in a serious debate of the ideology and it's interpretations, you should have had also be after a few relevant books of the topic, I had as well no intention to insult you - I have no problem to acknowledge that I am not a native English speaker, but it is also not true I would be bad, I recognize that sometimes it is likely to correct me for better understanding/sounding.
Thus, I will try explain to you again what should have been interpreted, and i.e. you may also recommend a rephrasing, so others as well won't misundertand it, make your recommendations here and after I may check it really the meanining did not have lost.
"orignal hatred" So, what would be the perfect English word/phrase to describe you don't necessarily hate collectively some people/group/ethnicity because of their default being (=just being or born to be Jewish), but your hatred is placed by an associated activity/culture/property belong (= assumed by the accuser/ideologist) to the corresponding people/group/ethnicity? In other words they don't hate Jewish people if they are placed/living in the near east in their old historical homeland (Judea), in Asia. The difference would be, that "original hatred" would be that the one would hate the Jewish people anywhere they are and would exterminate them as well...(=the hatred itself does not have a condition, it is fundamental and independent of any other factor)
To the "fascist issue", I think the question is put wrong....because the so-called "fascism" would not be an addition, but one of the fundamentums/building components of Hungarism (not necessarily on the whole, but partially for sure, but this is as true for Nazism or Turanism, Agrarianism, etc.). The solution cannot be to find sources to deny the party "would not be fascist", why would anyone refute an inaccurate designation, if it is well known, that fascism is one of the components of it and sources tell us openly they are Hungarist? How could have Fascism get over Hungarism, if the earlier is just a partial subset of it? In other words, in case the Anglo-Saxon historiography/sources are lazy or not professional in this topic and easily label parties with common denominators ("nazi", "fascist", "nationalist", "extremist", "far-right", etc.), and/or do not exist a professional and thorough work in the correspondent history and field, why should we ignore as wise editors i.e. non-Englsh scholarly RS that clearly tell their ideology was Hungarism? That's why it cannot be an original research, because we have sources, even if WP prefer English sources, but does not exclude or deny non-English sources...
Let me tell you a similar example...Czechoslovakia was abolished in 1939, the Slovak state was created and the Protectorate od Bohemia and Moravia...this fact is acknowledged by mainstream sources....but at the same time as well mainstream sources mistakenly refer to Czechoslovakia between 1939-1945, although such country did not exist that time. If I would follow your logic and refer to supportive WP policies, many articles would be undreadable, confusing and contradicting...and here comes the editor with common sense...copyedit, close-paharphrasing and using appropriate and accurate sources, because we are here to build an encyclopedia (at least a good one, a reliable one, IMHO). Thus my claim is legitimate that the source is inaccurate, because we accept and know that Czechoslovakia DID breakup, so we will find a solution not to mislead the reader to refer something that is not existing and we keep the historical articles consistent. (naturally, if two contradictive "something" are backed by sources, the "blind" may argue let's use only per majority, or in subsequent weight per policy, but we cannot apply and say that Czechoslovakia just a littble bit existed, or a little bit broke up, some sources say it breakup, other say it existed, I hope I don't have to explain further....) And this is not just one example, in the past 8 years I've met with much of similar issues that were finally solved by common sense, and not just I support such practise (([3]), check here another recent where the source are listing present-day status quo invalid in the correspondent time...we are happy for the accuracy and not saying "but the source say X and Y", because we know it is misleading and false, by the author's lazyness).
All in all, I have no problem if in case in the idelogy section by your initiative we mention that i.e. some/more sources designate/treat/(or in case widely) describe the party as fascist, but we cannot pretend if their ideology and (official) stance was not Hungarist. Especially, it would be that inconsistency - as described earlier -, if in the infobox we would advertize the party's ideology as "fascist", but in the ideology section we argue with other RS that "fascism" is just one of the founding element of their alleged and acknowleged Hungarist ideology...the reader would be mislead and confused, and why would we state something that we know is not true and factual? So, in order to satisfy you, I would not touch the infobox, the ideology is pure Hungarism, we may add additional sentences in the ideology section where it may be mentioned that they are described as fascist by "XX" (from abroad I assume, because Hungarians referred them commonly as "nyilasok" = people with Arrow; per reference to their Arrow Cross symbol).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for explaining more clearly what you’re saying about a-Semitism.
How’s this?
In a series of four books on Hungarism, Szálasi distinguished between a-Semitism, which called for a society completely absent of Jews, and anti-Semitism, which, he argued, would nominally allow Jews to exist in a particular society with limited rights. He argued that a-Semitism was not opposed to the existence of Jews per se; it was opposed to their existence in as being incompatible with Hungarian society. Szálasi extended this argument to Arabs as well.
If that accurately represents what you want to say, then perhaps you would like to go ahead and edit the article accordingly?
Regarding “fascism,” I believe your analogy to Czechoslovakia is not relevant, as that is a factual question. I agree that if many normally reliable, published sources contain a factual error, and there are reliable, published counter-sources proving that this is the case, common sense might lead Wikipedia editors to agree to emphasize the factually correct sources. However, I believe the question of whether the Arrow Cross Party should be considered fascist is not a factual one, it is one of interpretation. In that case, I do not believe there is any Wikipedia policy that will justify excluding an ideology from the infobox of a party if that ideology is used by a large number of reliable, published sources to describe that party, regardless of whether the sources are Hungarian or non-Hungarian. We have gone back and forth about this several times now, and none of your arguments have addressed this simple fact. Therefore I am inclined to add “fascist” to the infobox in the next day or so. You are welcome to add a section to the article explaining the difference between sources that describe the Party as Hungarist and those that describe it as fascist.Hirschjoshua (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put your sentence, with two little midifications, check if it is grammatically ok.
"fascism"-> I still disagree, since it is a factual question...the party ideology was Hungarist. It is not about if it is considered to be fascist or not. It may be considered as fascist, but it does not mean the party did not have the ideology of Hungarism. In the infobox, that is meant for short, summarized and relevant designative information, we should put the name of the ideology, and in the core of the article, in the ideology section we should expland or argue that how much their views may be considered fascist... I hope you see we are arguing on technical issue better...does it have a relevance to add to add to the infobox one component? Because then also the other relevant components may be added...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
You are essentially arguing that only the ideological term used by the party itself or the party leader him/herself should be used in the infobox, and that no related terms should be used. What Wikipedia policy or practice are you basing that on? There is no Wikipedia policy on this, so I went to List of fascist movements, looked up the first five political parties on the list that have infoboxes that include fascism, and counted how many terms are listed under Ideology for each one.
National Fascist Party: 1
Fatherland Front (Austria): 6
National Socialist Movement of Chile: 4
Ustashe: 6
Patriotic People's Movement: 4
I conclude that it is a common and acceptable practice to be inclusive in listing ideological terms in infoboxes (that is, to list any relevant terms), rather than exclusive (listing only the most obvious term).Hirschjoshua (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't know either any policy regarding this (however it does not mean it would not exist one). Yes, it is an acceptable practice, but the cases listed did not have an openly introduced new doctrine (not just by the leader and the part adopted/founded with it), so the list is trying to interpolate the ideologies they avow, thus they are compund elements, not subordinate. By the Arrow Cross party fascism is part of the Hungarist ideology. Thus, if you are convinced you wish to have a list of containing/bulinding elements of the Hungarist ideology, I may accept the form as it is by the Nazi Party, there the ideology is Nazism (National Socialism), and after the subsets are listed with a respective delimiter.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Far-right vs fascist[edit]

I see that in the first sentence of the article, the party used to be described as "far-right," then someone changed it to "fascist," then someone changed it back to "far-right." I would argue that "fascist" is more useful than "far-right" because it's more specific -- fascism being one form of far-right ideology. If someone reads just the intro to the article, and they read "far-right," they haven't learned as much about the party than if it said "fascist." Keingir, what is your reason for changing it from "fascist" to "far-right"? Hirschjoshua (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we entirely discussed this already above. This article suffered from many inaccuracies regarding terminology, etc. Far-right is the proper designation as it is describing a political position that may be from far left to far right etc., while fascism is an ideology anyway just a partial sub-part of the Hungarist ideology. We should not mix saison with faison, or fell on the trap of old mistakes, as the reader clearly reads far-right Hungarist party that is purely what it was.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Category: Fascist Parties[edit]

Kiengir, why did you delete this category?Hirschjoshua (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an IP edit, as others did in an other article for similar reasons.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://moly.hu/konyvek/retkes-tamas-budapest-hosei
  2. ^ http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/hist/paksarudolf/diss.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.kre.hu/tdi/images/CV/szakaly_sandor_publ.pdf

March 2020 edis[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Original research sourced to Ferenc Szálasi, head of the party". --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, this section have been formed with a consensus and not by original research, a sourced content and important part of the understanding of the party's ideology, removal is not supported.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I would appreciate seeing the discussion where this consensus has been achieved. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right in this talk page, after a long discussion and co-operation to have the most accurate outcome.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Is the thread in question Talk:Arrow_Cross_Party#Ideology_(yet_again)? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, including as well infobox related issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Is the contested text sourced to a speech by Ferenc Szálasi reproduced in the book, or to the 3rd party analysis? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text is not sourced to a speech by Ferenc Szálasi reproduced in the book, the text is sourced to the book which contains the analysis of written texts, ideologies, history of the party and the leader.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrow_Cross_Party&oldid=1216237985"