Jump to content

Talk:Péter Eckstein-Kovács

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

MOS:Ethnicity

[edit]

Hi @Gyalu22

I understand the gentleman's ethnicity might be relevant somehow, but not why it is so important to mention in the lead. Could you please explain or could we find a different way to highlight it without breaking rules? Aristeus01 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeus01 I'm not breaking rules. Why are you not reading my edit summaries? Gyalu22 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyalu22 I sense there is some frustration about this but I assure you I only try to understand. The rule is:
"A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button on the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text."
Your reversion and edits repeatedly reinstated "of Hungarian ethnicity", therefore in violation of the rule. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But not in a 24-hour long period. The rule doesn't say that after two attempts you are prohibited to rewrite the something ever again. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As previous stated, an edit is considered a revert if one just types the previous text. I was actually thinking there is a deeper meaning to your edit than just "this is what I like". Please undo your last edit and let's move on. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done already. Hopefully we can now move on to more productive activities. — Biruitorul Talk 09:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you reverted is in line with MOS:ETHNICITY. I'm quoting one example from the guideline:
  • Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992) was an American writer
Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance.
In the case of Eckstein-Kovács, it is important that he is Hungarian. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure the political party affiliation gives readers enough of a clue, but if you insist on continuing this sterile debate, you can do so at WP:DRN, because you’re not going to get consensus for your change here. — Biruitorul Talk 10:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the lead should provide concrete information and not clues. This dispute is far from being discussed extensively, which is a requirement for submission in the DRN. None of you have responded directly to my argument for changing. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, the change is correct. Please listen to me and don't warn me that you won't give in. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I for one have said all I have to say, and I don’t plan on repeating it ad nauseam only in order to fulfill a vague benchmark. Unless Aristeus01 has something to add, you really can take it to DRN. — Biruitorul Talk 10:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see anything from your comments regarding MOS:ETHNICITY's prescription I quoted. I'd like to engage in a suitable and productive discussion with you and Aristeus01 to finally make a reasonable decision, but for me it looks like you're instead of dancing around and evading what I say. That is why this dispute is boring. I won't take this to DRN because probably it would be deleted for being inappropriate. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Biruitorul.
Just to reiterate:
  • the argument with Asimov does not stand as his ethnicity or country of birth is not in the lead
  • the relevance of ethnicity in the lead in this case has only been argued as "it is important that he is Hungarian"
Please don't extend this sterile conversation. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment.
  • In the case of Asimov, his origin doesn't define importance. He didn't continue to identify as a Russian citizen, as the sentence above the example says.
  • Eckstein-Kovács's ethnicity is key in his career because he was a member of a party exclusively of Hungarians that represents the Hungarian minority in Romania.
Gyalu22 (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your last sentence, I don't think this conversation is sterile if we talk about this. Please just discuss with me if I'm correct with what MOS:ETHNICITY says here, than we can finally make a decision. I will reinstate if there is no question about the legitimacy of my reason for doing so. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t how consensus works. You do get to ask people their views. You don’t get to keep pressing them about their views until they’ve answered you to their satisfaction, especially when there isn’t all that much to say. Consensus on this page is against you. You can either accept that, or seek redress at DRN, where an uninvolved user will analyze the issue. — Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pressing anyone to say what I think. I said that if Aristeus01 wouldn't like to share his view with me and discuss the problem (which is what the talk page is for) I will reinstate the previous version. I emphasize again that I have a legitimate reason to do so. The guideline says that I'm right. Gyalu22 (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyalu22 I already said I disagree with your view on the matter. Please follow the consensus. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you aren't willing to discuss. That's what the talk page is for. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pressing people to debate a topic until they agree with you isn't a discussion. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not discussing is not discussion. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is. Read the edit summaries. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it’s not important enough for the (tiny) lead. His party (with the word “Hungarian” in it) is mentioned in the lead, and his ethnicity is mentioned at the very beginning of the article body. That is in line with MOS:ETHNICITY. Anything else violates the policy. Also, this dispute is seriously inane and boring, can we move on already? — Biruitorul Talk 08:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: DRN initiated, if we must. — Biruitorul Talk 05:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Gyalu22 (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not here to carry out a Platonic discourse with you. Either accept the consensus on this page, or make your case at DRN. — Biruitorul Talk 07:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where did you find in MOS:ETHNICITY that ethnicity important in the career should be omitted from the lead. I've quoted the relevant part from the guideline and you refused to react to it during the whole talk. "I just don't like it." Gyalu22 (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One can make the same argument for any ethnic minority politician, from Oona King to Sergei Shoigu to Rachida Dati to Carl Haglund (the last belonging to an ethnic minority party). This is how we do things here. Don’t like it? Mention your reasons at DRN, or get the policy changed. — Biruitorul Talk 08:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of these biographies, only one person's career is relevant to his ethnicity, but we don't base WP articles on each other, especially not on non-GAs that need many improvement. We write articles following policies and guidelines, and as I've quoted above, it instructs us to mention ethnicity in the second sentence in case it is important to the career. Eckstein-Kovács spent most of his political career as a member of an exclusively Hungarian party that aims to validate this minority's interests in Romania. That he is a Hungarian obviously defines importance.
Your submission on DRN hasn't been opened yet. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We’ll wait until it opens. This text has been in place for 5140 days; I’m sure another two or three won’t make a difference. — Biruitorul Talk 09:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, previously you urged us to move on. We could've done that by now if we would've just settled this dispute here. But we can't change on the past. Send notifications to the concerned users' user pages. That is required for the dispute resolution to start. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Ethnicity of Subject

[edit]
In this RfC editors discuss whether or not Eckstein-Kovac’s Hungarian ethnicity should be included in the lead.

I’d like to point out the fact that the RfC question does have some nuance. The RfC question is asking if ethnicity should be in the “lede sentence”, which most editors understand to be the literal first sentence in the lead. However, there is also an underlying question of whether or not ethnicity should be in the lead section, at all; some editors choose to address the distinction between the lead sentence and lead section, and others do not. I will be assessing the consensus for the lead sentence and lead section separately; though, some arguments are congruent.

Firstly, the lead sentence. The argument for those supporting exclusion is essentially that his ethnicity is not relevant enough to his notability or is not significant enough to be in the first sentence; this argument is grounded in MOS:ETHNICITY.[a] Furthermore, some participants assert that his status as a member of parliament or as a politician is where is notability is derived primarily, not his ethnicity or association with an ethnic-based party. These arguments are reasonable applications of MOS:ETHNICITY in this situation and are substantially supported[b]; therefore, I conclude there to be a consensus against including ethnicity in the first sentence of the lead.

Now, the lead section, excluding the first sentence of course. It's important to acknowledge that six of the ten participants indicate a support (or apathy) for including ethnicity in the lead somewhere;[c] however, three participants did not specify how they felt about inclusion in the lead generally and one expressed disapproval.[d] This means that many[e] participants in this discussion view his ethnicity as not being defining enough for mention in the lead sentence but do see it as important enough for mentioning later in the lead. The general evidence to establish significance of his ethnicity is to cite his membership in an ethnically-oriented party; this is done to satisfy MOS:ETHNICITY.[f] While that is substantial, I can not discount that many in the RfC have chosen to not see his ethnicity as defining enough for lead inclusion, and what bothers me the most is those that didn't specify on the lead as a whole, rather than the lead sentence exclusively. They likely have an opinion to share but didn't because of the phrasing of the RfC question. That reality led to lack of thorough discussion. Both sides have good arguments that are of a similar style and rooted in guideline; so, I can't say that one argument is better from a closers perspective to tip the scale one way or another. For these reasons, I find no consensus regarding inclusion of ethnicity for the lead more broadly, and I would recommend further discussion with a clearer focus.

(non-admin closure) Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Notes
  1. ^ This is the relevant portion of MOS:ETHNICITY (and the bolded part is even more relevant!):

    Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
  2. ^ Although consensus is not a vote, of the ten participants in the discussion, at least eight do not believe that ethnicity needs to be included in the lead sentence. That means 80% support exclusion from the lead sentence. This number is outside the general range where no consensus results are seen (see here)
  3. ^ This number is the combination of all yes' and no's that specified they support inclusion somewhere in the lead.
  4. ^ So it's 6–3–1. Six support. Three didn't clarify. One oppose.
  5. ^ At least four
  6. ^ This is the portion of MOS:ETHNICITY used this time (again, I've bolded the important part):

    Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should the Hungarian ethnicity of the subject of the article be mentioned in the lede sentence? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply Yes or No with a brief supporting statement in the Survey. Do not respond to other editors in the Survey. The Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion.

Survey

[edit]

No. Mentioning the ethnicity in this case does not follow MOS:Ethnicity nor does it add anything to the notability of the subject as the mention connected with the persons former political affiliation falls under: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"--Aristeus01 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. From the MOS:ETHNICITY guideline's example with writer Isaac Asimov, ("Per the above guidance, we do not add ethnicity or country of birth. These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance.") it is clear that mentioning the gentleman's ethnicity is appropriate. Eckstein-Kovács spent most of his political career as a prominent member (running for presidency and finishing second in 2011) of a Hungarian party in Romania that aims to represent the minority's interests. (See its achievements: [1].) Back-and-forth discussion on the topic can be found here: [2]. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. His primary significance is as an elected member of the Romanian parliament, not as a Hungarian ethnic. In practice, that exception is for stateless (Sioux, Xhosa) or pre-modern (Cuman, Scythian) people, not citizens of modern states who happen to be part of a national minority. — Biruitorul Talk 08:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No (invited by the bot) Not important enough for the lead sentence. Elsewhere in the lead would be fine. BTW the lead is too short. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - a political career of more than 20 years tied to a political party specific to the Hungarian minority in Romania strikes me as defining to the notability of the subject. I haven't read any of the Romanian-language sources, but it would be very surprising to me if the association of the subject specifically with the politics of the Hungarian cultural minority in Romania were not a consistent, even definitive, feature of the coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. His past membership of an "ethically oriented" party seems quite adequately clear and his role as a politician is what makes him notable. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No: per North8000 Jack4576 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No: also per North8000. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in 1st sentence, but Yes, elsewhere in lead section - Looks like his ethnicity is important enough to who he is and what he did to be mentioned in the lead, but it isn't so central to his notability to be included in his opening sentence. That sentence is exclusively for declaring what the subject is primarily notable for. Fieari (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No: His ethnicity is not what made him notable, though it can be mentioned in other parts of the article. JoseJan89 (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • I’d like to point out, @Newimpartial: and whoever else may be interested, that as a general rule, we simply do not mention ethnicity in the lead when it comes to similar cases, i.e. European politicians of ethnic minority parties. See for instance Atidzhe Alieva-Veli (a Turk from Bulgaria), Herbert Dorfmann (a German from Italy), Tatjana Ždanoka (a Russian from Latvia), Talat Xhaferi (an Albanian from Macedonia) or Carl Haglund and Elisabeth Rehn (Swedes from Finland). This is how MOS:ETHNICITY is generally applied in this area, and there really is no compelling reason to make an exception for this one case. — Biruitorul Talk 18:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the examples you are giving are not associated with parties based in a single ethnic minority. And to point to contrary examples, Spanish Catalan and Basque politicians and Belgian Walloon ones are typically provided with the relevant ethnic identity in the article lead, if they are notable in relation to parties specific to that identity. So I don't find your generalization about how MOS:ETHNICITY is generally applied to be entirely compelling. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, all of them belong to ethnic-minority parties: Alieva-Veli to the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, Dorfmann to the South Tyrolean People's Party, Ždanoka to the Latvian Russian Union, Xhaferi to the Democratic Union for Integration, Haglund and Rehn to the Swedish People's Party of Finland.
      Spain and Belgium are not great examples because they’re federal states where most politicians in a particular region belong to the main regional ethnic group, and where the primary focus of the parties is ideological rather than ethnic. Nevertheless, the claim is easily disproved. Pere Aragonès, Jordi Turull, Joaquim Forn for Catalonia, Iñigo Urkullu, Andoni Ortuzar, Arnaldo Otegi for the Basque Country, Paul Magnette, Georges-Louis Bouchez, Charles Michel for Wallonia. — Biruitorul Talk 21:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm afraid that I do not understand what you mean by the claim is easily disproved. Many of the links you have given (Aragones, Urkullu, Ortuzar, and Otegi) actually mention the relevant minority identity in the lead sentence. Several of the others (Magnette, Bouchez, Michel) are not notably associated with nationally-oriented political movements.
      Furthermore, you appear to be confusing movements that represent multiple ethnic communities (e.g., Movement for Rights and Freedoms and the South Tyrolean People's Party) with ones that represent a single minority viewpoint. It seems likely to me that in general the quality of sources depicting the political figure as notable for representing one particular minority community to which they belong - which is the relevant criterion in relation to MOS:ETHNICITY - is likely to be more substantial in those cases than with multi-ethnic parties.
      It also seems to me that - as I have already noticed in my passing acquaintance with articles on Spain - a considerable faction of editors prefers to emphasize national citizenship over identity in cases where MOS:ETHNICITY, on a plain reading of the guideline, does not mandate that articles do so. Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Aragonès, the link in the lead is to Catalonia. No mention of ethnicity. For Urkullu, there is no link at Basque. No mention of ethnicity. For Ortuzar, the link in the lead is to Basque Country (autonomous community). No mention of ethnicity. For Otegi, the link in the lead is to Basque nationalism. No mention of ethnicity.
  • In terms of Wallonia, looking through Category:Walloon movement activists, no mention of ethnicity in the lead for Bernard Anselme, or for Jean Rey (politician), or for Julien Lahaut, or for Jean-Maurice Dehousse.
  • The Movement for Rights and Freedoms is basically a Turkish party, and the South Tyrolean People's Party is basically a German party; but if we must use the standard of strictly single ethnicity parties, then there are countless Welsh nationalists without links to their ethnicity, from Llyr Gruffydd to Rhun ap Iorwerth to Siân Gwenllian to Liz Saville Roberts to Ben Lake to Hywel Williams. Or Raffaele Lombardo, a Sicilian nationalist, or Gilles Simeoni, a Corsican nationalist.
  • Having said all that, all these politicians, including the one under consideration, primarily derive their notability as office-holders in their state of citizenship, not as ethnic activists. In fact, the funny thing about Eckstein is that he’s among the least nationalistic Hungarian politicians in Romania — to the extent that he eventually quit his party and is now an independent. — Biruitorul Talk 21:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't entirely understand the argument based on wikilinks in other articles. The question here is whether to mention a minority identity in the lead, which is done in various biographies of Catalan, Basque and Walloon politicians associated with specifically Catalan, Basque and Walloon political parties. Various articles do so, with wikilink or without, and I raised such examples in response to Biruitorul's statement that we simply do not mention ethnicity in the lead when it comes to similar cases - a statement that seems to go beyond the actual evidence.
    I would also point out, in what I hope to be my final comment, that the RfC is worded as being about the lead sentence and several !voters have taken the issue literally in this sense. However, the issues at stake in the locations linked above concern whether a mention is merited in the lead paragraph at all (and the first No !voter here has proposed to exclude any such mention, in prior discussion). By the design of this RfC, the issue of whether "Hungarian" belongs elsewhere in the lead paragraph will remain unresolved if a mention in the lead sentence does not attain consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a word has two related meanings but there is no Wikilink, we cannot assume that one of those meanings in particular is intended. For example if I write “Catalan”, it could mean ethnic Catalan, civic Catalan or both. My point is that ethnicity is not linked, and I continue to contend that we do not, as a general rule, mention ethnicity in the lead in similar cases, and that no compelling argument for that has been made in this case. — Biruitorul Talk 11:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead section and lede sentence

[edit]

Hi @Gyalu22 and @Biruitorul

I'm adding you two since the initial discussion was opened by you and I think you are still actively interested.

My understanding of the RfC outcome is that the ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lede sentence (first sentence of the article) and, as per @Iamreallygoodatcheckers comment, there is "no consensus regarding inclusion of ethnicity for the lead more broadly".

I'm asking for your opinion on the matter, in particular the necessity of a larger discussion with the exact topic of "should ethnicity be included in the lead section of the article?" or if everyone is ok with the current version (or other options, of course). Aristeus01 (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was certainly struck by Gyalu22’s interpretation of the RfC as license to simply revert to his preferred version. I don’t consider that the RfC settled the issue. I remain of the view that MOS:ETHNICITY bars us from mentioning ethnicity in the lead section, as the subject primarily derives his notability from the elected offices he has held. — Biruitorul Talk 06:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't know the survey was here, I thought we're voting at Talk:Péter Eckstein-Kovács/RFC. The community thereby couldn't read my arguments, only your counter-arguments, but I respect the decision.
P.S. good luck with editing in the future. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyalu22 @Biruitorul Thank you for replying. I remain open to discussion if you want to debate this issue or others about the article. I have to say the gentleman in question seems like a very interesting person and I'm considering editing the lead to improve it. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Péter_Eckstein-Kovács&oldid=1201715864"