Talk:2006 protests in Hungary

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

Obscenity[edit]

Either explain why the comment is obscene, given local culture and language, and citing references, or just drop the word. Anything else is the purest POV. -Harmil 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the comment itself is not obscene, but the speech contains plenty of obscene language. Changed the wording a bit... --Euniana/Talk/Blog 00:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The version translated by BBC tones down a lot. "Fucked up" was translated to "screwed up", "shit" was translated to "brink". I would change it but I guess there's no point. // Gargaj 10:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is explained in the article: Ferenc Gyurcsány's speech in Balatonőszöd in 2006 May

Soccer ultras?[edit]

What are "soccer ultras"? Soccer hooligans? Ultra-nationalist soccer hoolgians? Unigolyn 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this really great site called WIKIPEDIA, they have articles on almost anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultras.

Both. The ones here were of the bald, heavily-built type, and illustrating the severity is the fact that they were touting flag designs incorporating the arch-fathers's (Árpád) symbols... --ThunderBird 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And the radio said that sport shops suddenly ran out of baseball bats. – b_jonas 17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lied about what?[edit]

I suppose this information can be found somewhere in one of the references, but considering its special relevance to this particular issue i would expect it to be found within this article. No-where does it say what the fellow's party lied about, though. It doesn't say it in the 2006 elections or Ferenc Gyurcsány articles, either. It just says 'they lied to win', which isn't very informative at all. Probably the specifics are in that blog (source #2), but i can't read Hungarian, so i dunno. ~ Lav-chan 07:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. However lookin at Ferenc article, perhaps it is this:
The opposition decried him for not disclosing information about the state of the Hungarian economy before the 2006 elections, as mandated by the Hungarian constitution, reasoning that basic economic data should be the basis of voter judgement. Gyurcsány admitted that he didn't disclose 'the details of the truth', but said that he has not lied.
Nil Einne 08:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just from reading the text at the BBC, it looks as if the only 'lying' mentioned is, erm, just the usual politican talk. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5354972.stm:

Mr Gyurcsany went on television on Sunday amid the row and said the "lies" he referred to were those politicians told citizens, who now believed they could have "happiness as a gift".

And from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5359546.stm:

I almost perished because I had to pretend for 18 months that we were governing. Instead, we lied morning, noon and night. I do not want to carry on with this.

Sounds more like a idealistic repudiation of dishonesty and failure in goverment than a denial of campaign promises. --88.155.98.110 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-lethal[edit]

Remark: User:Al345 removed the reference of non-lethal riot countermeasure solutions. No problem with that but note: maybe the situation is not there yet (and hopefully won't be ever) but more news reports underlined that riot police had strict orders _not_ to use any firearms, thus a reference on non-lethal means felt to be in place. Morning reports mention that police is being equipped with bulletproof vests, presumably as those provide better protection against bricks and stones.

As well as American full-length, reinforced riot shields. I live in Hungary, and seeing the riots on TV and the net every night, I know full well that riot forces are going to need all the protection they can put their hands on... --ThunderBird 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambigous sentence[edit]

This sentence is ambiguous, and therefore I dont know in which way should I fix it: "He replied that not just he, but everybody lied, will not resign..." 2 variations I can see:

  1. "He replied that not just him, but everybody lied, and he will not resign..."
  2. "He replied that not just him, but everybody that lied, will not resign..."

Anyway, even my versions arent perfect, but the problems are: was he refering to "everybody that lied" or was he stating "everybody was lying". Also did he say that _he_ will not resign, or _nobody_ will resign? Personally I have no opinion on this and I just want to improve this article, but for exact clarification of this statement I think Hungarian references would need to be consulted (and I dont know Hungarian language). Shinhan 11:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is just a very shortened summary of Gyurcsány's reply, but the only questioned thing is that _he_ would resign (as a PM) or not. The contributor presumably translated his/her own summary into English, and the original composition idea was probably:
"He defended saying that he was not the only liar in the [current Hungarian] political scene AND he also verified that he does not plan to resign."
This concept was compressed and conveyed within the cited sentence, thus your first variation is correct.
As from Hungary, can verify that all references here, including the PM himself talked about the speculations relating Gyurcsány's possible resignation only. The second variation simply makes no sense.

Number of policemen injured?[edit]

So were there 102 or 141 (or some other number of) policemen injured? The article contradicts itself. --VjeraNadaLjubav 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there was a number of 138 in local reports yesterday evening, 141 can be correct as final result so far.

Off to get some photos[edit]

Im in Budapest atm, will see if anythings happening tonight. --Stevage 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence removed[edit]

Prime Minister Gyurcsány Ferenc ordered the police not to let them in the building and to do anything necessary to stop them.

I have removed the above sentence from the article, since Hungarian police is ordered to protect State buildings (and the National Television building is one of these) by law. The Hungarian PM has no authority over the police. Furthermore, the preceding sentence is a bit erroneous as it was not a 'smaller group' of people but hundreds who went to the building. However I have no non-Hungarian source to support that at the moment so I will leave it at that for now. AdamDobay 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Resignation calls[edit]

Didden't the main oppersition party call on the PM to resign, contradicting this artical which states that the demonstrators had no party support. --Boris Johnson VC 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did, several times, and one opposition party politician is actively partaking in the protests (two have joined her today). I don't know if this appeared anywhere in non-Hungarian news. AdamDobay 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrating groups did not and do not get any direct, official support from FIDESZ (the main opposition party), neither is FIDESZ represented officially on any demonstration. All right-wing political formations, from FIDESZ and other parties down to the mostly insignificant civil groups (rather say political clubs) agree that the current goverment and the PM himself got discredited and should resign. But this hardly could be called a "party support". It is just a common political opinion and wish, shared by almost the half of the population, but does not mean official support. The parties have their own ideas about the political outcome and they organize their rallies by their own, if any.
The now demonstrating groups were around for years but always on the edge of the political importance, and the riots provided them a good opportunity to get more attention. But as of evening of 21 Sep, the important opposition parties, namely FIDESZ, MDF made no sign of any support for them. The support from the Parliament-outsider MIÉP or KDNP is not known or shall be verified yet.

Romanian demonstrations[edit]

There were several demonstrations of solidarity with the Hungarian protesters on Tuesday evening in at least four mostly-Hungarian cities of Romania. (Source: Ziua, in Romanian). Would this information be worth including in this article? Biruitorul 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely. I asked the same thing in HuWiki. – Alensha  talk 18:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it in. Biruitorul

In Romania there were other solidarity protests too, for example I have pictures about the one that took place in Sepsiszentgyörgy(Sfântu Gheorghe in romanian) on Wednesday. The event was organized by the mentioned MPSZ(protest in odorheiu), newspapers said that there were about 150 protesters. If I rembmer it well.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.208.136 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plundering[edit]

Some IP user removed the reference (covered by media) of plundering the state television building, based on her/his personal observations. Please consider that the television building is enormous and a massive turmoil was going on inside as well, so it is virtually impossible for a single observer to gather correct information unless record it on video. Therefore, actually the media records (eg. aired reports) ARE the verifyied sources, against some personal impressions of an individual (who was at the scene by unknown means). Facts are that the offices, the buffet, some video tape archives, technical rooms and the valuable television history collection was uttermost vandalized, mindlessly destroyed, food, drink and other buffet stocks were practically robbed, expensive plasma television sets and cultical objects like vintage original props of legendary tv-shows were simply stolen. This cannot and must not be forgotten, on the contrary, it shall be emphasized that it was nothing to do with any "revolution". It was a mob plundering, no more and not less.

Those cultical objects were simply not stolen. But the story was useful for a little (customary) mass manipulation by the "mainstream" (aka "left-liberal") media.
Yeah, when in doubt go with the published media reports, not the original research of an individual. Stevage 16:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore we must say that anti-plundering text modifications are vandalism. Please do the necessary steps.

Hungarian notification for the plunder-denying IP user:

Lehet, hogy angolul nem ertetted meg, de ha egy feldult kozintezmenybol valaki, akinek semmi joga incs ott lenni, "trofeakat" visz el, az eppugy fosztogatas, mint ha plazmateveket vagy kajat, piat visz el. Fosztogatas es gyujtogatas volt. Ha ismetelten atirogatod a szoveget, elobb-utobb vandalnak minositenek a botok vagy az adminok, es blokkolni fogjak a hozzaferesedet.

Ezen kivul: a Wikipedian nem irunk olyat bele egy szocikkbe, hogy "masok szetbasztak az ebedlot", nem irunk egyeni velemenyeket, es nem hivatkozunk ala nem tamasztott egyeni tapasztalatokra . A Wikipedia nem beszamolo hely, nem forum, hanem tenyek gyujtemenye a jelen es a jovo szamara. A tenyszeruseg es a neutralitas alapveto. Kerlek, figyelj oda ezekre a dolgokra.

Ha megis ugy erzed, hogy nem ertesz egyet, kerlek, elobb gyere ide, itt ird le, beszeljuk meg, vitassuk meg, csinaljunk egy kompromisszumos, es a Wikipedia elveinek is megfelelo szovegvaltozatot, ne egymas szovegeit irkaljuk oda-vissza. Most ismet az eredeti van fent, de mar modositva, benne van par dolog abbol, amit te is irtal. A tobbit egyeztessuk itt. Koszi.

going forward[edit]

Several left and right wing politicians (and László Tőkés, leader of the Szekler community) held speeches today for the crowd in Kossuth tér. For ex: Imre Pozsgay, Mátyás Szűrös, Pál Schmitt, Zsolt Bayer, etc.

Upload the pictures to the commons, please![edit]

Hi!

For more pics, see Commons:Category:Politics of Hungary, and if you have time, please upload your pictures there, puting them into this category. Thanks! --VinceB 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...or rather into its subcat commons:Category:2006 anti-government protests in Hungary. Thanks. – Alensha  talk 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to be a joke?[edit]

I think the antisemitic, "funny" picture should be removed from the article. I can't believe someone put that up. I presume it's photoshopped, but even if it's not, this issue has got nothing to do with the Jewish people so I think it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrs Tremond (talk • contribs).

Which picture do you mean? I don't see anything remarkably anti-Semitic here. These protests indeed have nothing to do with Jewish people, and the demonstrators are well aware of that (except for some right-wing nuts that tend to turn up at every demonstration to cause trouble...) – Alensha  talk 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine which picture would be antisemitic or "funny", or what the hell Mrs Tremond is speaking about. ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2006. October 1 09:47 (CEST) 09:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry I haven't looked back for a while, the last time I looked there was a picture of Gyurcsany with this article which showed him wearing a kippah, which was pretty obviously photoshopped. It's not there anymore, so all the better. Mrs Tremond 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, then someone must have vandalized the picture, not the article itself, that's why I haven't seen anything unusual in the page history... don't worry, though insulting stuff is sometimes inserted by vandals, it gets usually removed pretty quickly. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. :) – Alensha  talk 14:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influences on the 2006 municipal elections[edit]

This section is confusing for several reasons. It doesn't distinguish at all between votes for party lists and votes for individual candidates. I also commented out a sentence that suggested that 100% of those eligible actually voted.

-- nyenyec ☎ 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt help with distinguishing between party lists and candidate votes for the council results, but I did add the party breakdown of the results for the mayoral races, as those played an equally large role in shaping the perceptions of gains and losses. I hope the addition is not too expansive! It may, for one, seem redundant to have added a breakdown even of Budapest district mayors (rather than only mentioning that Demszky was re-elected), but on the other hand the relative size and importance of Budapest is hard to underestimate: about one in five Hungarian citizens lives in Budapest. No-itsme 01:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to try to tackle Nyenyec's points. First, regarding the "sentence that suggested that 100% of those eligible actually voted". That was a question of the original sentence having been misphrased. The original sentence said "52.62% of all citizens qualified to vote voted for opposition parties, 37.73% for the governing parties and 9,65% for other parties and civil organisations", but that should obviously not have been "of all citizens qualified to vote", but rather "of the voters". The actual turnout figure was in fact not 100% (of course), also not "less than 50%" (as was noted in the comment), but 53,1%. I have included the information on turnout now with a reference to the data at the National Election Office site.

That leaves the second point, about the data that was originally given on the share of the votes taken by government and opposition parties not distinguishing between between votes for party lists and votes for individual candidates. That was a fair enough point. However, the source of the data given for the breakdown is an authoritative one: it's from the site of the National Election Office. And a review of the admittedly very complicated electoral system for the municipal elections (http://www.valasztas.hu/en/01/1_0.html) appears to show that the municipal corporations of local settlements and Budapest districts are elected through the mixed electoral system of candidates and party lists, but the county and Budapest assemblies are not - and it was the party breakdown of the vote for the latter that had been given here.

I have now tried to deal with the problem by briefly indicating the problem at hand, and then inserting a table that gives the breakdown between government and opposition parties in each of the categories, as given on the National Election Office site.

However, that's not the end of the problems here, because there were two things commented out now. The paragraph mentioned by Nyenyec; and the "pretty table" about the breakdown by settlement type further below. The latter was commented out because the totals in that table didnt match with the breakdown of the totals that had been given at the beginning of the section. The explanation for that, however, turns out to be quite simple as well. The breakdown of totals that had been at the top of the paragraph (52.62% for the opposition parties, and 37.73% for the governing parties) was that for the results of the elections for the county and Budapest assemblies, whereas the breakdown of totals that had been in the pretty table below (30.33% for the opposition parties, 27.06% for the governing parties, and 42.61% for others) had referred to the results of the mayoral elections. I havent worked on this yet, so that table remains commented out for now. No-itsme 03:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie tie-in[edit]

I don't mean to be flippant, but a movie was released this month which ties into this theme. Man of the Year (2006 film) is about a U.S. President-elect who discovers that the election results were fraudulently misreported, i.e., that he didn't really win the election. The drama is about how he learns this, and what he does about it. --Uncle Ed 20:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football?[edit]

I think the mentioning of football ultras is overused, contributing to a highly POV and propaganda image of the article. We should mention that police reports said football hooligans have joined the protesters, but why keep it repeating over and over? The word "football" is mentioned six times, it's more than in some football related articles. I leave the question open for discussion before removing football related phrases from all but one more relevant location. --V. Szabolcs 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah--let's not demonize footy fans here, most of us are crazy but harmless. :) K. Lastochka 22:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit[edit]

Responding to the copy-edit tag, I came to this article, and found the following sentences that do not really make sense. Not knowing anything at all about the event, I will leave them to someone more knowledgable to rewrite:

  • "Mr Gyurcsány also made clues which can be understood as admitting having called for clandestine media or private capital support." You don't "make clues", you can "give clues", but that still doesn't make sense with the rest of the sentence.
    • Tried to fix this one. Not sure it's good, though.
  • Approximately 10,000 protesters demanded the resignation of Gyurcsány and his party for lying throughout the cycle and then during the campaign to win the next election. What is "the cycle"?
    • Translation mistake; the Hungarian word for "term" and "cycle" are the same. Fixed.
  • After 23:00, a smaller group of the demonstrators tried to get into the Magyar Televízió public television building at Szabadság Tér (Liberty Square) to announce their demands on air, peacefully. Is this meant to say: "After 23:00, a smaller group of the demonstrators peacefully tried to get into the Magyar Televízió public television building at Szabadság Tér (Liberty Square) to announce their demands on air" or "After 23:00, a smaller group of the demonstrators tried to get into the Magyar Televízió public television building at Szabadság Tér (Liberty Square) to peacefully announce their demands on air"
    • Couldn't figure this out... the Hungarian version doesn't even mention that anything was peaceful here.
  • blocked the main entrances but were unable to stop the attackers so the attackers did or didn't get inside? if this explained under the next heading then it shouldn't be included at the end of this paragraph because it does not link to the first sentence of the next paragraph.
    • Fixed.
  • They also set several parked cars ablaze (which led to part of the building catching fire too) and eventually managed to enter the building, forcing the police back. The demonstrators managed to voice their demands, but since the television station had already ceased its transmission due to the riot, it was not aired live. The building was abandoned about 02:30 by the police. After that, the mob entered the premises. So the attackers who set several parked cars ablaze and managed to enter the building to voice their demands were not "the mob"?
    • It seems that even more people entered... if "mob" was translated from the Hungarian word "tömeg", it's possible it wasn't meant as a pejorative word, just means a large group of people.
  • The article says first (injuring 141 police officers) and then Over 150 people were injured, including 102 policemen.
    • Again impossible to know, neither the referenced sources nor Hungarian wikipedia mentions these numbers.
  • Larger numbers of riot troops were deployed Larger numbers than what? than the night before? or just " a large number" ?
    • A large number. (Possibly it was erroneously translated frm Hungarian where "larger" is used without saying larger than what.)
  • At 01:00 CET is CET a timezone? It is not used in the first mention of a time back up in the Day 1 section. It should appear at the first instance if all times quoted are in the smae timezone.
    • I deleted it since it was probably wrong – the riots were in late September - early October, when Hungary was using CEST (Central European Summer Time). There's no reason why Index.hu, the referenced source would use CET, the standard time zone to which Hungary switches back only in late October. (BTW Index.hu cannot really be used in references, it seems many of these pages have been moved since then and it's impossible to find any of them.)
  • Live reports suggested that part of the mob also made some verbal efforts (shouting claims) to depict the violent acts similar to those of the 1956 Revolution. Is this meant to say "Live reports suggested that part of the mob shouted claims that the violent acts were similar to those of the 1956 Revolution"?
    • Fixed.
  • Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány was faced by his actions, and the protesters' demands, by reading their petition which they managed to hand over the previous day. He was faced by action by reading their petition? Perhaps "He was faced with the consequences of his actions, and the protester's demands, when he read their petition which they managed to hand over the previous day."
    • Fixed.
  • he was committed to pushing through his tightening package in any circumstances, without the possibility of even a minor change to it. "tightening package" what is that? And perhaps the sentence would read better "he was committed to pushing through his tightening pagakge without even any minor changes made to it, no matter what the circumstances".
    • "Tightening package" is probably the translation of megszorító intézkedések (basically a set of new laws that try to eliminate the deficit in the state treasury by making life worse for the average citizen, e.g. higher taxes, tuition fees, etc.) According to my dictionary the correct translation of this is austerity measures, I changed it to that, I hope it's correct now.
  • Why does the "Other cities" section contain details of Monday and Tuesday but sit only in the "Tuesday" section?
    • Fixed.
  • saying that Gyurcsány might as well join MIÉP The chairman of the party wanted Gyurcsány to join because he was a liar and he admitted to it?
    • He was joking, pointing out that Gyurcsány is now called a liar both by MIÉP and himself.
  • Demonstrators also requested the city's otherwise popular Socialist mayor This implies that normally he is popular but at the moment he is not. What has done to be not popular at the moment?
    • It was meant that he is popular, but during these protests Socialist politicians weren't exactly held in high esteem. Anyway, I deleted "otherwise".
  • he approved that his party was still planning to keep a rally in Budapest on Saturday He acknowledged? or He claimed?
    • He liked the idea of the rally and he supported it. Tried to fix it.
  • Some of them made anti-government signs in English and wanted to take part with them in the official celebration on Kossuth Square With them => with whom? with the signs? If so "wanted to take part in the official celebrations on Kossuth Square with them".
    • Fixed.
  • Despite their readiness (during the previous few days, hundreds of policemen were called in from the country to the city), police did little to defend the crush of radical anti-government protests that took place only 300-500 metres away and pressed nearer and nearer by police's gas attacks in the wide Erzsébet Boulevard (that night and the next day many political analysts and congressmen brought up the idea that this police behaviour was not by chance. This sentence is just so convoluted I don't have any suggestions except to break it up into 2 or 3 sentences.
    • I broke it up to 2 sentences.
  • Policemen in most of the restaurants and pubs drove in guests (referring to safety risks) or drove them out (referring to that they search for radical demonstrators) and they used wayside phraseology. "referring to that they search for radical demonstrators" what does this mean? and what is "wayside phraseology". By phraseology is it meant terminology? But what is "wayside" phraseology/terminology?
    • It's possibly a literal translation of útszéli beszéd, which means they used foul words. Tried to fix that.

This is not meant to seem critical, but merely help with the improvement of the article, so if you can fix any of the above sentences, please do so, and then perhaps strike out using <strike> </strike> any points you have fixed. JenLouise 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping! Most of the article was written by Hungarians and it's not always easy to communicate in a foreign language. I tried to fix what I could. – Alensha talk 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess[edit]

Some sections are simply too long the others are too short. The details about the municipal elections don't belong in this article at all.

It's full of irrelevant details that don't have any connection to the rest of the text, making the page hard to read.

The strict chronology should be given up, important events should be summarized properly, unimportant details should be removed.

-- nyenyec ☎ 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the details about the municipal elections not belonging in this article, I dont agree. The demonstrations served to mobilise the opposition to the government in those elections - and were partly intended to do so, at least the Fidesz demonstrations. The outcome of the elections both reflected and influenced the political turmoil of demonstrations and riots.

Since the outcome of the elections might also be interesting for people who are not looking for info on the protests at all, though (election buffs, for example), I can imagine making that section a separate Wikipedia item though, and leaving only a brief section here with a link. Or incorporating it into the "Elections in Hungary" page, where there's now only an empty stub on local elections, and point the link there.

I'll leave that up to more experienced editors though ;-)

No-itsme 16:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on "Influences on the 2006 municipal elections"[edit]

Above, under "This article is a mess", user Nyenyec suggested that "the details about the municipal elections don't belong in this article at all"; and I disagreed, pointing out that "the demonstrations served to mobilise the opposition to the government in those elections - and were partly intended to do so".

I did suggest that the section could be incorporated into the "Elections in Hungary" page, but that a brief section would then have to be left here with a link.

However, user Kissl deleted the entire section on 21 April and moved it in extenso to the "Elections in Hungary" page, leaving neither brief summary nor link here.

Considering that this was a major deletion, and that contradictory opinions had been voiced on the Talk page on the subject, this should not have been done without first going to the Talk page.

The deletion in extenso also broke the narrative of the entry here, with the phrase, "Following the elections", with which the subsequent section ("Further demonstrations") started off, coming somewhat out of nowhere.

I have therefore now reinserted a much shorter version of the "Influences.." section, rounded off with a link pointing to the full detail on the "Elections.." page. No-itsme 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to insert some kind of summary here with a link, but it seems I forgot. Sorry about that & thanks for doing it now. KissL 10:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Reading back what I wrote above, I was being needlessly pissy about it, sorry about shooting from the hip. No-itsme 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Events in March 15?[edit]

Maybe it's a bad idea, as I see the title of this article, but can we write the events of March 15, 2007 there? There were riots that day, too (sadly, in the another National Day of Hungary) with some reasons. First, the demonstrators heard the news about arresting György Budaházy, who according to the Hungarian police, destroyed the Soviet monument at the Liberty Square, where the siege of the Hungarian Television headquarters happened. This was one of the reasons. Second the usual, because of the close-doored speech of the Hungary's Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány admitted that he and his party, the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) lied in the "morning, evening and night" about the economy of Hungary. The demonstrators earlier planned to take over the Kossuth Square, but it didn't work. Some of the events was covered on BBC and CNN. 80.99.130.116 07:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is some misunderstanding even at the CNN and BBC. The arrest of Budaházy happened in the afternoon, and the hissing at the PM and the egg-throwing at Demszky had happened sooner. The arrest supposedly only sparked the nighttime protests and barricade-buildings. And it is also sad that nearly all of the protesters are referred to as hooligans and right-wing extremists (even Nazis by some sources), without any visible clue of their political alignment. --V. Szabolcs 10:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must remark that BBC oftenly cite "critism" against Fidesz ("far-right etc.), but I never heard they cited criticism against the police, saying the arrest of Budaházy was a well-timed action to generate riots, so a socialist PR-action to find excuse to accuse fidesz. And I must remark the "traditional" Arpad-flag has never been used by the pro-nazi regim of Szálasi. It's a whole stupidness. The Arpad-flag were not been used, only it's red and white-striped motifs were put onto the Nyilas-flag as a part of it. But the Nyilas flag basically were a red (socialist) flag with the Arrow Cross on it's left part. But it is a totally different flag, in its history and in its appearence, too. See [1] (can you see the bald, agressive young szálasi-fan skinhead holding it, being on the alert to muck constitutional order?) and see [2]. And what does it mean The "Árpád-flag" is "the modified version of the pro-nazi-flag"? The fact is the converse of this fool sentence: the nyilas party "modified" the Arpad-flag, using its stripes to construct their own redflag-based one (the "Arpad-flag" has a more-than-800-years history; and the nazis were rise up in the 40's, so it is a totally stupidness to say that the Arpad-flag were the "modified version" of the nazi flag). The historically Arpad.flag is used often by extremists, pro-nazis and skinheads, too, but it is present on the official governmental occasions, also (e.g. when the prime minister makes its oath, a row of the "historical" flags are taken ceremoniously in the Parliament, and the traditional "Arpad-flag" isamongst them). But: the pro-nazi regime never, NEVER used it. ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2007. April 21 11:47 (CEST) 11:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

npov?[edit]

couldn't we get rid of that ugly npov?.... -- Torzsmokus

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 protests in Hungary. 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) 19:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_protests_in_Hungary&oldid=1196491509"