Talk:Fidesz/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Ideologies

The ideology section on the about tab is a bit of a mouthful. The history of the party is pretty well covered in the article, and the party has generally been of its current incarnation since the 2000s, so I do not believe it is necessary to list historical ideologies along with the current ones. Psherman122 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, you have a point, although some consider important how the party who was a prominent member of the liberal internationale how shifted, meanwhile as well the meaning of liberalism shifted as well by some interpretations. Simiarly I could say criticism section is mouthful as well, so unless it remains, that should also to have the full picture.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC))
I don't find the length of the infobox section under discussion to be excessive. Listing former ideological orientation of a party is not uncommon for wiki articles about political parties.
It should be noted that the infobox is independent of the article body. Thus, a comprehensive wiki article does not exclude a comprehensive infobox, since the infobox is a concise summary of certain salient data (which may also be harder to fit into the body). That said, I think the /* History */ and /* Ideology */ sections still require expansion in order to present a sufficiently detailed encyclopaedic overview.
Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Contentious paragraph under the Antisemitism section

I've been reading through the article and something caught my eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidesz&diff=1041239153&oldid=1041237078

This edit calls Miklós Horthy "a Nazi collaborator and a well-known anti-Semite" in wikivoice. Now I did a few quick word-searches on that article and Horthy isn't directly described as a "Nazi collaborator", and the aside from one or two attributed claims, the article does not directly call him an antisemite.

I personally agree with the editor, but I want to set my personal biases aside for a moment and ask if it is appropriate to make this bold claim in wikivoice, or if it's better to attribute these accusations to their respective sources? 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum, the paragraph also uses the term "rehabilitate", which implies Horthy was convicted as a war criminal, something that - regrettably - never happened. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to spin off the Criticism and controversies section into independent article

Hi! I've noticed that the Criticism and controversies section is getting a bit unwieldy due to its significant length. Especially frustrating is the impossibility of adding additional subsections to break the text down further into more subtopics. Right now you've sometimes got ~10 bulky paragraphs per subsection and such, making it impossible to know what topic each individual paragraph covers and consequently hard to find what topic you're looking for.

I think it'd be wise to just make a separate article titled e.g. /* Criticism of Fidesz */ and just leave a wikilink and a short summary of its contents here. Fidesz has been widely regarded as a foremost example of democratic backsliding in the developed world as well as a pioneer of illiberalism, so I think the topic is notable enough on its own merits to warrant its own article anyway.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this change, the text can be moved over to Criticism of Fidesz. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I also agree. The current list-like structure is hard to read. A succinct and more holistic description of how Fidesz has hollowed out democracy and enabled corruption and antisemitism would definitely be better. --Tserton (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I've seen in Wikpiedia at multiple right-wing to far-right parties from Europe that they have been libertarian in the past. I think this is misleading and false. Fidesz was never libertarian, specially if you consider the civic libertarian side of libertarianism like personal freedom/individual rights. I don't even think economic libertarianism is fitting. "Libertarianism" should be deleted from the political ideology section. Virtroxiam (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Virtroxiam: I can't find any mention of "libertarianism" in the article. What exactly are you referring to? Did you by any chance misread "liberalism" as "libertarianism"?

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The user removed it, even though it has two sources behind the claim. I reinstated it. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's just remove the "historical ideology" section of the infobox entirely, as per the consensus of the RfC held a few months ago. It's distracting and of secondary interest at best. --Tserton (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm ready to remove it and implement changes. To me, a consensus is established regarding all questions that I've asked. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Vacant0.
Yes, apparently noone actually got around to implementing the RfC consensus. If anyone is up for a bit of editing, they should just go ahead and do it now.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have implemented the RfC and I will work tomorrow on creating the Criticism of Fidesz page and adding more info and sources to the page itself. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Vacant0 I was planning on getting round to making the Criticism of Fidesz split myself one of these days, but you can do the honours if you'd like. The content needs more subsections, some content needs to be reshuffled to move from a chronological paragraph sequence to topic-based chapters, and the Criticism of Fidesz page as well as the current /* Criticism and controversies */ section will need a concise consolidated intro/overview.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox cleanup + Right-wing → far-right, introduction

I'm opening this RfC due to recent disruptive editing and because a known Hungarian user KIENGIR who participated in previous discussions has been banned earlier this year.

1) Infobox cleanup – keeping "National conservatism", "Social conservatism", "Right-wing populism", "Economic nationalism", "Euroscepticism" and "Anti-immigration" in the infobox including the present political position. Illiberalism itself isn't an ideology and the historical section can be instead moved to the introduction, in my opinion, they don't have to stay in the infobox. The source for Christian democracy is old and that label itself isn't used today to describe the party, but, if there are recent sources describing the party like that, then it can stay.

2) Right-wing → far-right – Should the infobox and introduction state the party as solely "far-right", or should the status quo remain?

3) Introduction – Regarding the introduction, it can be expanded to include their current and historical political positions and ideologies. The general question for this one is "Should illiberalism and authoritarianism get included in the introduction?" (eg. Law and Justice's page).

While voting, use support and oppose in the subsections below. Discussing how the introduction should look can be discussed in the "Discussion" subsection below. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (Question 1)

  • Oppose - I think illiberalism qualifies as a political ideology, and Fidesz is perhaps the most notable purveyor of said ideology (we can still also mention it in article intro). The "Historical" section is commonplace for party wiki articles (can again also be mentioned in intro). Fidesz amended the constitution to define Hungary as a Christian nation, also see Fidesz#Christianity, and Fidesz#Illiberal_democracy. Keep the rest though. Jay Hodec (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Illiberalism (illiberal democracy) itself like authoritarianism is classified under systems of governance, not ideologies, and these descriptions can favor both governments and parties, but from what I've noticed both sources in the infobox and in the "Illiberal democracy" section tend to describe Orban's governance as illiberal or they either quote Orban's "Christian democracy and Illiberal democracy" comment. This can be also said as "Orban's leadership of Hungary and Fidesz turned towards illiberalism". From what I've read, they do not mention Fidesz as an illiberal party but rather Orban's style of governance. Regarding Christian democracy, this could've been an appropriate term to use for Fidesz years ago, even the source in the infobox is from 2013, while the sources in the "Christianity" section either quote Orban's "Christian democracy" again or they use something else. Orban, and the party itself, hold socially conservative views and left-leaning economic views which is already in the infobox. Christian democracy seems to be less sourced nowadays. The historical section adds just another layer of ideologies that might not be even useful for readers, I haven't seen any political party besides FPO and Jobbik that still has this in their infobox (AfD doesn't have it, Slovenian Democratic Party doesn't have it, and so on). It would be more useful to move this to the introduction and to explain what the party fought for, instead of leaving a plain list of ideologies in the infobox. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
First off, how about we split this section (and out heretofore comments) into 4 sections, since it grapples 4 different questions?
Liberalism is considered a pol. id., therefore illiberalism should deductively be considered a pol. id. Furthermore, authoritarianism is a style of governance. However, promoting a certain style of gov't can be considered a political ideology (e.g. liberalism, monarchism, federalism, republicanism, pro-democracy, theocracy, direct democracy, anarchism, European integration). I'm sure we can find plenty of fresh sources describing Fidesz as illiberal; every other article discussing Fidesz at any length mentions it. "[...] describe Orban's governance as illiberal or they either quote Orban [...]" Walks like a duck, talks about being a duck. What more do we need?
"[...] either quote Orban's "Christian democracy" again or they use something else.[...] Again, walks like a duck, talks about being a duck. I fail to see how the leader of the party saying "our goal is christian democracy" is not evidence their ideology includes christian democracy. These are plenty good references and ideological positions have been added for far less. But, in any case, defending the Christian character of the Hungarian nation features prominently in their rhetoric and policies (most recently as a justification for the draconian LGBT laws), so I'm sure we can dig up plenty of other sources if the current ones don't suffice. Just to reiterate, they friggin' changed the constitution multiple times to define Hungary as a Christian state.[1][2]!
I have no problem with keeping the historical ideological positions and think the section is useful, however, my support is soft and am ready to be convinced otherwise. Note that the section will only exist with parties that have significantly shifted their ideological orientation over the course of their existence. I would insist in keeping the historic political orientation (the "Until c. 2011" bit). Jay Hodec (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Technically, illiberalism is a wording that comes from "illiberal democracy" which is the opposite of "liberal democracy", another style of governance. Illiberalism would be the rejection of the Western style of democracy, which includes ideologies such as liberalism, political progressivism, and others. Liberalism itself can be classified as an ideology, although liberalism is splintered into many other versions of liberalism (social liberalism, conservative liberalism, classical liberalism etc.), while monarchism, federalism, republicanism, theocracy etc. are again styles of governments. Something that can be seen actually is that these political stances are mostly listed in the infoboxes, although this would also mean that "authoritarianism" which clearly isn't an ideology could be added into the infobox too. I have only seen Illiberalism in the infoboxes of AK Parti and PiS (for PiS this claim was later removed by consensus). If we decide to keep "illiberalism" in the infobox, even though in my opinion we shouldn't, we will have to find a source that describes Fidesz as illiberal, not Hungary nor Orban but Fidesz.
Again, this can be summed up into social conservatism which is designed for that, we will need third-party and not WP:OR sources that describe Fidesz as Christian democratic, newer sources would be more prefered.
The user below did prove a point in some way or another, the Republicans and Democrats in the US only include present ideologies and not the former. This also includes for many other parties across the globe, including the Europe. I have stated AfD (which was centre-right conservative at its founding) and SDS (formerly centre-left) as examples, but there are many other parties that have made such ideological changes and they do not have the historical section in the infobox. These changes weren't permanent but temporary, some parties tend to keep the same ideologies while some don't, there's not a reason why we should keep them, Fidesz is way more known as a right-wing party, although its liberal past still has to be mentioned in the introduction somewhere. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
If liberalism is an ideology that espouses lib. democracy, and illiberalism is an ideology that espouses the opposite, where's the problem? Illiberalism is also mentioned in the body of the article. I must emphasize that "illiberalism" was added to the infobox based on consensus reached on this talk page previously (instead of "authoritarian" because it was concluded the latter is not an ideology per se) (see: Talk:Fidesz/Archive_2#Authoritarianism_and_lead_description). "[...] we will have to find a source that describes Fidesz as illiberal [...]" I think a source describing the Orban/Hungarian gov't as such is OK, but how's this?:
   "Many commentators are asking: how it can be that 30 years of democratic transition has led to the dominance in Hungary of a politics of intolerance, illiberalism and ethno-Nationalism, as manifested in both the current government, Fidesz, and the neo-fascist party, Jobbik. [...] In fact, Fidesz have viewed Jobbik as a significant challenge to their hegemony on the illiberal right [...]"[10.5195/JWSR.2018.716]
Social conservativism is not necessarily religious (let alone Christian) in nature. I don't think it's OR if we don't list a source defining Fidesz as "Christian democratic" explicitly if it clearly displays all the markings of such a party (though the harder bit to prove may be the "democratic" part) ...
Yeah, I also thought of the US parties as prominent counter-examples. Again, listing historical ideological orientation is not unique to the Fidesz article (though "commonplace" might have been the wrong word to use ...). But I guess it be purely a matter of taste whether to include it or not. I tend to favour a bit more detail in the infobox, but won't insist if others disagree.
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I 1000% think the ideology section infobox needs to be cleaned up. At the moment it's a textbook example of excessive infobox detail (and arguably OVERCITE): the sheer amount of text is more likely to put people off reading the infobox at all. Infoboxes are for at-a-glance summaries of the subject, not comprehensive lists of everything associated with it. The historical section is a good candidate for removal (mostly for the sake of brevity, but also because it's not one of the most important things most readers are interested in reading about it). It's like including "historically anti-slavery" for the US Republican party - true, but out-of-place in the infobox. --Tserton (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with this cleanup.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC) strike sock
  • Support - It's always going to be difficult to decide if something is an ideology or not when the word has only been used for a few years. But in this case, I believe "illiberalism" to be barely more than a label that Orban used to describe his party's ideology in order to avoid being described by other terms, such as far-right. Also agree with all the other cleanup proposals. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Most of these should be discussed in the body (where they can be given proper context), but an infobox isn't the place to list every single aspect of the topic's ideology - imagine what most major big-tent political parties would look like with that. Figure out which aspects are most important and use those. The historical bit and "Until c. 2011" in particular needs to go - infoboxes aren't the place to detail the subject's history. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
""Until c. 2011" in particular needs to go - infoboxes aren't the place to detail the subject's history." Why not? Why does the "Founded"/"Founder" infobox field exist, then? The historical political position is used in infobox with some other political party wiki articles; it is not unique to this article. It's a terse & cogent summary; the history of the article's subject is detailed in ... well ... the "History" section of the article. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (Question 2)

  • Oppose - Most sources say right-wing, some say far-right (although far-right can be viewed as a subset of right-wing ideological spectrum). Wiki articles for comparable parties almost invariably say "right-wing to far-right" and either say the same in the first sentence, or leave it out completely (instead just listing the predominant ideological orientation), or discuss it at greater length later on in the intro. Using just "far-right" is usually reserved for neo-fascist/neo-Nazi/extreme ultranationalist/ultraconservative/theocratic parties etc. Jay Hodec (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
P.S.: I've noticed that since I've last checked some ideologically comparable parties (e.g. Vox (political party), Alternative for Germany, and National Rally) have been labelled as (solely) "far-right" with the following footnote: "The [party] is considered part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right that does not oppose democracy." This may be applicable to Fidesz regardless of balance of sources labeling it right-wing/far-right, though I'm not sure ... Jay Hodec (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that there are sources that describe those parties above as right-wing. I haven't looked through if Fidesz has been described as "radical right", but if it is, we can discuss it's addition as the note that can be seen on those far-right parties above. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it's probably wisest if we set down a precise metric to determine whether to include RW-to-FR or FR i.e. whether it is the rough balance of labels in reliable sources, or whether multiple sources describing it as "radical right" overrides the former. I'll try to peruse the talk pages for the other relevant parties to gauge hitherto consensus on the issue ... Jay Hodec (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I'm not strongly opposed to calling Fidesz far-right, but it's my impression that Most reliable sources simply call it right-wing populist (or even just populist). And not to get bogged own in semantics, but Fidesz doesn't govern all that ideologically - it often takes right-wing (and, yes, far-right) positions, but only out of opportunism: to inflame the culture wars and distract from its kleptocratic and authoritarian governing style. That's almost a definition of populism (though I know that's a rather amorphous word). The German AfD and the French National Rally are more ideological (maybe just because they're not in power). I understand the desire to call a spade a spade and simply describe it as far-right, but I can't help think that misses the point in a way. --Tserton (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Update: After surveying a few sources (the Economist [3], the NYT [4], Washington Post [5], the Guardian [6] etc.) I've found that it's almost always described as some combination of right-wing and populist, and almost never as far-right.--Tserton (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Populism and right-wing populism are descriptors of ideological orientation and not of the position on the ideological spectrum, thus, they are not mutually exclusive with being far-right; quite the opposite, actually (see: Radical right (Europe)).
Being a right-wing party again does not exclude being a far-right (right-wing party). E.g. nazis were right-wing, but, within the right-wing, more precisely far-right.
I don't think it's relevant here what's in the hearts of Fidesz politicians - whether they're just cynical opportunists or true believers. Most far-right reactionary despots were at the same time power-hungry kleptocrats and were "not very ideological". Again, the two are not mutually exclusive. If a party rules like a far-right party (promoting far-right ideas and legislation), it's far-right.
As mentioned above, far-right is a subset of right-wing, therefore, if sources often describe a party as right-wing that doesn't negate being described just as far-right for the purposes of the infobox. With AfD and National Rally, consensus was to put more weight on consensus among scholarly sources a significant minority (<50%) of mentions describing it as "far-right" as outweighing the majority of news sources describing the parties as "right-wing".
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It might be worth collecting sources that identify it as one or the other (right-wing or far-right) to get an impression of the numbers. --Tserton (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The challenge is to come up with a consistent and mutually agreed upon methodology to assess them. A tentative proposal that I've been contemplating is to select a limited number of reliable English-language news media sources (e.g. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT, Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, Economist) and perform a pre-determined search for the frequency of usage of either term (e.g. "https://www.nytimes.com/ Fidesz OR Hungarian government OR Hungarian parliament OR Orban government AND right" in past X years), assessing a set number of returned results. Another one would be to find all the scholarly sources published in a certain time period, assess frequency of usage and weigh importance (is it a passing mention or is the main topic of the work (e.g. political ideology in Europe), what is the impact factor of the publication, is the author a respected scholar in the field), exclude any possible biased sources (e.g. commissioned by gov't, allied think-tanks, etc.), and assess the share of sources supporting either designation.
How to position a party or organisation on the political spectrum appears to be a persistent conundrum on wiki since no fixed approach exists, so it'd be great and very useful if we could work out some rough draft of a fixed objective methodology that could be applied universally ...
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most sources use "right wing" in a search. Perhaps add "right-wing to far-right", but not just far-right.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC) strike sock
  • Oppose - Not enough sources refer to them as far-right to warrant the change. They have certainly been accused of being far-right, so the descriptor could be used in the body of the text with the appropriate quotation, but not in the infobox. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. At least currently, we're citing a single source supporting right-wing and sixteen calling them far-right - far-right is a subset of right-wing, so a single source describing the topic as right wing doesn't contradict the numerous other sources calling it far-right. If sources, overall, overwhelmingly call them far-right, then we should just do so as well - presenting it as a range is WP:SYNTH here when nothing in that one source contradicts the other sixteen, or presents its ideology as a broad spectrum itself. If people think there's a bunch of sources disputing the far-right label, they should present them (certainly there's enough high-quality, non-opinion sources referring to it as such that if it is disputed, it should be possible to find equally high-quality sources detailing the dispute.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the number of references is intentional overkill; there are plenty of sources out there describing it as just "right-wing" (or even "centre-right"). The "right-wing to far-right" designation kept being reverted to just "right-wing" so editors began adding excess sources to try and staunch the reverts. It does not however mean that there are only 17 relevant sources, or that 16 out of every 17 (or even a majority) describes the party as far-right. The "right-wing to far-right" designation is common on wiki to indicate an intermediate position (or ambiguity among sources that support both/either without a clear favourite). It's also not synthesis if the party is generally right-wing but with some - but not all - of the attributes of a far-right party. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (Question 3)

  • Support - Add paragraph to intro mentioning liberal origins, rightward shift, illiberalism, accusations of authoritarianism, and some sources describing it as far-right. Jay Hodec (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as per Jay Hodec, but would also expand a little on what is meant by those terms in this case (for example, curbing of civil liberties and press freedom and court-packing). --Tserton (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is important for context.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC) strike sock
  • Strong Support - This is exactly the sort of context that is often missing from ledes on political parties that evolved ideologically over the years. Jay Hodec's structure for the added paragraph seems fine. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support --PJ Geest (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

(invited by the bot) I don't have expertise in the topic to go full depth here. But comments in two areas: IMO, unless they are widely accepted, characterizations are just somebody's opinions or or talking points by their proponents or opponents....not information. So unless "far-right" is widely accepted, suggest leaving it out. My second point is that this article doesn't have an intro. You are probably referring to the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a selection of items for an introduction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Naturally, we're depending on reliable sources to decide whether to label it as far-right, and not "just somebody's opinions or or talking points by their proponents or opponents". However, there are too many sources to assess them all, as well as no clear rules as to when to characterise a party as just "far-right" as opposed to "right-wing to far-right" when you can find sources for both ... So, how do we define widely accepted?
Not sure what your second point is:
   "The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
-J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Smoothcheeks: you removed the "far-right" label in the article, but without giving any reliable sources for why you made that change -- indeed, you mention explicitly that multiple WP:RS do indeed use that label. Before you make any more changes to the characterization of the party's political position, please join in the discussion here, which is attemption to create a consensus position that meets Wikipedia's content policies. — The Anome (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey @The Anome,
what sort of label i am obligated to use? Sorry, I am have no "experience" in using these labels, what does it do?
To give you a source as an example in HVG: https://hvg.hu/360/202130__cathrine_thorleifsson_extremizmuskutato__radikalisokrol__jel_afalon, that Viktor ORban is just a "symbol" or "hope" for right wing populists and far right politicians. The reason I brought this particular example, is that HVG is not a pro-gov Hungarian newspaper, it also criticises Orbn a lot, so from an "oppositional" point of view that says he is not a "far-righter" I think could be fair.
best, Smoothcheeks (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
sorry for the "i am have" part, it was not deliberate, I was not focusing on grammar. Smoothcheeks (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the result of the RfC was 3-1 in favour of taking 'far right' out of the infobox. It might be worth requesting a formal close if there is disagreement on that. On another note, this is not as easy as 'give a source backing up one or the other' - there are reliable sources calling Fidesz far-right, but there are reliable sources calling them right-wing, radical right, and just about every iteration of 'right' imaginable. There are also sources calling them a huge number of other descriptors, like populist, kleptocratic, anti-communist, and on and on. Some even call them economically left-wing. It would be obviously unreasonable to include every single one of these well-sourced 'ideologies' in the infobox, so it becomes a question of due weight.--Tserton (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fidesz/Archive_3&oldid=1172274848"