Talk:2010 Hungarian parliamentary election

Polls on Jobbik

I deleted the sentence about "recent opinion surveys" showing that Jobbik is expected to receive over 20% of the votes. The claim was sourced to a page, now no longer available, on Jobbik's own website; meanwhile the exhaustive listing of polls on the Hungarian Wikipedia page about the elections lists six separate polls from March, none of which have Jobbik over 17%. No-itsme (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you could do one of two things. 1) Remove the data as speculation as shortly the real results will come in and polls and such will become largely irrelevant. 2) decrease the percentage to become consistent with the Hungarian wikipedia-page such as replace "over 20%" with "over 15%". Hobartimus (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

A section should be added about the elections being very badly organized. The first round was supposed to be over by 7:00 PM, but it's still going on with half the country waiting for the results... I waited for 4 and a half hours, cameramen from several TV channels were there, all the net is abuzz about people queueing half a day. But at least my party got in :) – Alensha ^talk 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

by all means add this under a "crticism"/controversy section with sources. if you read hungarian you probably have more sources than me, so go ahead.

I will, as soon as I'm not busy with university stuff... The whole scandal is likely to be repeated at the second round anyway. – Alensha ^talk 23:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian party names

I added the results for the first round but i dont know hungarian so can someone add the Hungarian names/review the partys on the results list. (so that the names match that on the poll)

election backgound

there is no report onthe lead up to the election here. would be nice to have some, plus there is a cited source, if there is anything for debate it should be discussed here. As per this edits [1] comment the mere reason to remove it is because it is "far-right, antisemitic, 9/11 "troofer" website from the USA and has no credibility." first that is one man's claim, if he has doubts then he should prove why its not credible. secondly, he calls it a far-right website that is antisemitic when the article it quotes says "fidesz-eyes-2010-elections-gypsies-jews-homosexuals-beware" that in itself shows the claim against it is false. and thirdly, it explicity says "foreign media cited." and last but not least there is also a request to expand the pre-election info (perhaps from the Hungarian page)

added a "controversy" tag so as to differentiate from regulat election talk. hopefully that makes it less controverial here.

The above unsigned material is from Lihaas, who is already caught inserting libelous material, and claiming that Molnar was a Fidesz candidate, when this was completely false, yet easily verifiable on the election website. Molnar is an independent candidate, in fact he is the opponent and detractor of Fidesz in the election, as he is trying to beat Fidesz candidate Dr. Daher Pierre, and attempting to take that seat from Fidesz. I suggest not to try to push nonsense here, and blatant falsehoods. Hobartimus (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are greatly apprecited and of great value too. So don't get me wrong, I am far from attacking you or your edits.

Nevertheless, I added more sources to claim the pre-election info. And if you feel it is inappopriate you can talk and say why instead of reverting it and resorting to ad hominem attacks. there are 2 links from Haaretz in this regard and why was the entire passage removed if not corrected? That includes unsourced and original analysis that is backed by nothing but what seems to be an editors own view that is left here. So what is false about the content of what he said? You say he is not a Fidesz candidate for this election fair enough. the source says he has been in the past and the party didnt condemn it. then based on the fact of the 1 "error" you say the whole passage is false desptie sources?

Additionally, the [2] you dont explain why 1 table is more right than the other. conversely i did say i merged the two, and info from both were merged.

[3] these numbers dont match the source (hungarian source) of the first table. but perhaps that is an error. some simply explanation could validify your edit.

For some reason you removed thsi edit w/o an explanation [4]. I dont know why.

Nevertheless, im leaving the your table in but im putting back the link because of an unexplained removal. Until we get consensus here theres no point back-and-forth on the edits.

Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"the source says he has been in the past" It is not enough to say "in the past" it was exactly the 2006 election. This is problematic for two things first, it belongs not in the 2010 election article in this context, second the alleged comments were made in 2009, so at the time of nominating him in 2006 you could hardly know what will he say in 2009. "the party didnt condemn it" you see this is why you are not thinking about what's written down. You were informed he was a candidate (successful one) in 2006, and yet after winning a seat he is dropped from the candidate list, and a newcomer is nominated by Fidesz instead. So we know the party didn't only "condemn it" but kicked him out from the chance of winning a seat. So I suggest we don't fill the article with false information. Yes you are right that there is unsourced analyisis there but I did not insert it. And it is also important that the topic is the 2010 election, not the 2006 election not the 2009 election but the 2010 election all the others have their own articles. Just as you could quote from around 1990 saying how Fidesz and SZDSZ were in an alliance, or that around 2000 MDF and Fidesz were in an alliance, they were opponents of each other in the context of this election. Just as Molnar and the Fidesz/Fidesz candidate are opponents now each trying quite hard to defame each other and take the seat from the other one. Hobartimus (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are adding back the old table at all cost, then add it in addition to the current table. We will need a new table anyway after the second round one that summarizes the whole election and we can keep the current table as the first round's table. Hobartimus (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But at the time of saying it he was a Fidesz candidate? Sure, mention the party reaction too, better than taking the whole passage out. the non condemning came from the source, but replace with a source (doesnt have to be english) saying they did adn kicked him out.

Its also important to say what alliances broke up. there is also the haaretz quote which is certainly a more reliable source. cant keep 1 cited section out and another uncited one inLihaas (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can't wait forever...

this edit was arbitarily removed pending this discussion with a whole new reason for an edit summary? A reason to improve doesnt mean a reason to remove. Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ive reverted the POV edits that went through WITHOUT discussion here, as i waited for a response and it never came yet the edits were taken out. furthermore this CITED info (which can be counter-cited or reworded instead of removed) was taken out in favour of a WHOLE SECTION without sources by the same editor. (who incidentally calls this a soapbox when the other is his personal view? Pot calling the kettle black?

I dont have beef with editing this section, but can we discuss the probs. On my side, i think your arguement can be accomodated with either better wording and/or expansion to also include other stuff so it doesnt seem as POV against just 1 party. But to remove when it can be improved i dont think is warranted. ThNKS.Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

aftermath

how about a section on the aftermath. or perhaps a better sourced analysis with cited from the papers. Surely, there must have been some parallel between the BSE being flat on Mon. and down a lot on Tues. Investor confidence in the new government? (i wouldve though the market with be up strongly)Lihaas (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was down 290 pts monday, down 200 pts tuesday, and its up 150 pts today. (about 250 pts is 1% so these were pretty small moves) Also before the election it was down almost 500 pts and up 650 the next day much bigger swings. But you must know that there were a lot of polls before the election so if anyone wanted to sell or buy b/c of the result they could do it months or weeks before as the poll numbers were known. If the results were a surprise I could see the two being connected but like this, not that much. Hobartimus (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was odd the days before the election such large swings.

it was flat this monday (up 9). true what you say, but on big election days in some countries there are big moves on the market (india was up 18% last may, lanka was up a lot to (forget the numbers))Lihaas (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

first round table

was deleted here citing an insertion of the "correct table" the table below combined 2 different tables from previous edits and includes all parties. So if there is a "correct" one the removed was. Results are meant to feature all parties (per source) not just ones that were popular of whathaveyou.Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

original research/analysis

the tag has been on for a few months, if that doesnt come up with sources it must go. (another few weeks/months for tag may be better as it was not discussed here)Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

3 months gone now.,..Lihaas (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good removal. Hobartimus (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong image

File:Magyarországi választás 2010 második helyezett egyéni jelöltek pártállása.png is out of date, it says Jobbik won in most places, and Fidesz hardly one at all. That colour code reference needs updatingLihaas (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

MSZDP

The % of votes cast for the MSZDP is miscalculated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.15.52 (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolution?

Guys, this was no fucking revolution! Please remove the redirect!!!