Talk:Romani people in Hungary

Summarising and resolving the debate on anti-Roma sentiment/Bayer/Lakatos

KIENGIR Let's establish what you object to before moving forward. Is the following correct?

1. You wish to include the comments of Attila Lakatos in the text.

2. You wish to exclude any mention of the comments of Zsolt Bayer from the text.

3 You wish there to be no section entitled "Anti-Roma sentiment"

4. You wish to exclude the first two paragraphs of the section entitled "Anti-Roma sentiment" from the text.

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I really find unwelcome and time consuming your non-understanding, you've been explained everything overly occasions in the previous section.

You should read that back, word by word from the beginning. You were told your new additions of the article will only gain consensus if you accept the NPOV repair of them, that goes for both the Anti-Roma Sentiment section, similary to the Bayer section. You did in the end, so was no problem, all info was present. After a few months, you started to abuse these last stable version, removing parts repeatedly, in the end you implied you don't accept like this, so then that status quo was rolled back that was before the additions of the concerning sections, per talk and policy (you've been informed in time, immediately). Now this you also don't want to accept. You don't WP:OWN the article, and you are not exempt of our policies and guidelines. Both options I outlined find with me, it's up to you which you choose (but you were told also about this more times).

Consequently your summarization is obviously not correct, and even surprizing given the so many explanations before.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

I'm really sorry, but I do not fully understand your position, could you possibly clarify in good faith. Your style of writing is not very easy to follow. I am sure you want to include the comments of Lakatos. Do you wish to exclude any mention of Zsolt Bayer, if not, what do you want said about him? Do you object to the sourced content re anti-Roma sentiment? If so, why? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

.....let's try again:

A - include everything

B - not to include those sections/pharagraphs where from you removed Lakatos

my recent edits showed these (everything was A, except the last one, which was B, however, the approach has been similar to any of your edits apart from these so far, as you have been told so many times, read again the first part of the second sentence of my previous answer). (KIENGIR (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

So you feel that unless the opinion of Attila Lakatos, a minor Fidesz supporter with no official standing among the Roma community, is mentioned, there should be no section on Anti-Roma sentiment and no mention of Zsolt Bayer's anti-Roma remarks which made news across Europe (unlike Lakatos, who was not widely quoted)? I don't think that is a position based in wikipedia's policies. Would you be amenable to removing Lakatos' comment on Bayer alongside all the other direct comments about it, leaving only the words of Bayer which were widely quoted in both news media and academic sources? This follows TGR's suggestion above. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What I feel that one sided representation without including versatile opinions are not welcome (and I never removed the whole Anti-Roma sentiment section, just some parts bundled inlcuding the title, how many times I have to explain the obvious?), and I won't reiterate the discussion about Lakatos which has been already discussed above multiple times, and regarding WP policies you've ben also told the situation, your omissions goes against neutrality (and similarly nearly all of your additions failed initially the necessary accuracy as well, better was a pov-soapbox style), and since the beginning - as I just told -, any of your additions these principles have been applied, regardless if it included or not included a person you try to put a stress pattern.

And would you remove your preliminary text as well, or from the section you put in? You pushing everywhere Fidesz-supporter, although Jeszenszky is not anymore, but strongly criticising, you additions are filled with personalizing and political shoapboxing, which is not a good direction, the Bayer case is complicated as well and for neutrality the more information is the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

The preliminary text is well sourced, as are all my edits. I think your problem here is more that you disagree with the academic sources on which I am basing my edits. Could you say specifically what language you want to change? The relevance of Fidesz-supporting is that "Fidesz" is the governing party, and it is mentioned as significant in the sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the whole issue is not about "preliminary text is well sourced" or "disagree with the academic sources", but the fact you don't have an expertise knowledge on the events/subject as well you forget the important NPOV principle that do not present opinions as facts, hence your edits needed to be adjusted and amended. For instance (as said before many times), you don't give the section a title which would claim opinions as facts, as well you don't phrase sentences which are not part of the source and was not said like "refused to condemn the comments". The same at Jeszenszky, the source did not say he would be Fidesz-supporting, on the other hand it is even a dubious statement (and Fidesz is a governing party, not the...). Your twisted edits clearly targeting/following a political agenda at one direction.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC))

The only way to resolve this is to concentrate specifically on the content of the article, you give two concrete examples of something you consider to be incorrect. In the text I used the phrase Fidesz "refused to condemn" with regards to Bayer's racist declaration. The quote upon which it is based was "No one in the Fidesz party leadership publicly condemned Bayer's article." (rs here). If you wish it can be changed to "did not condemn", to fit more exactly with the RS.

Re: Jeszenszky, he was a Fidesz supporter at the time, I can add a source for that if you want. Again it is relevant as the degree of state tolerance for anti-Roma sentiment is clearly relevant to the article.

Now, you mention other areas where opinion is included in the text, what are they?Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That source now you refer was not directly put after that sentence, and that article tells about Fidesz party leadership, not governing Fidesz party, as you quoted as well. On the other hand, I won't reiterate above that the statement was not targeted collectively everybody, but the criminals. You don't have to qualify persons at all instance about the possible political connection/beliefs, because you just want to collectively attach and equal it with a party, although they are not the same, many ambassadors and other civil servant are working during a goverment, but it does not mean they are all ardent supporters of any party, it is just enough to wikilink Jeszenszky and mention he was an ambassador.

I have to indicate, currently we are discussing under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestation regarding the Bayer issue, namely the pharagraph after the quotation:

- by the restoration of the section title which would separate statements from other happenings, instead of "Anti-Roma sentiment" -> "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" should be written (which would come after "...damages to the Roma victims".

- the starting sentence should be changed from "In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer" -> "In 2013, the Fidesz party leadership refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer"

- the sentence "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the Fidesz-supporting ambassador to Norway..." should be changed to "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway...".(KIENGIR (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of Bayer's statements, as do the vast majority of reliable sources, but please let's not derail this.

The article states that Fidesz is the governing party, thereby justifying the phrase "governing Fidesz party". I'm happy to add "leadership" to that, so it says "The governing Fidesz Party leadership refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer.."

Géza Jeszenszky, fine.

Could you possibly rephrase this: "I have to indicate, currently we are discussing under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestation regarding the Bayer issue, namely the pharagraph after the quotation:- by the restoration of the section title which would separate statements from other happenings, instead of "Anti-Roma sentiment". "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" should be written (which would come after "...damages to the Roma victims"."

It doesn't really make sense in English. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it is simple, significant part does not mean every member of a community, shall it be adressed to any ethnicity.

- The article is inaccurate since Fidesz is not "the governing party", but this I already indicated above. I just inserted the text what is on that ominous sentence and it is Fidesz Party leadership solely.

- 'I have to indicate, currently we are discussing under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestation regarding the Bayer issue, namely the pharagraph after the quotation' -> claryfing what we are discussing about as part of the possible consensus building, in case of reinsertion

- Statements from happenings has to be separated (which would come after "...damages to the Roma victims." - the least sentence of the ending pharagraph), and the subjection title that was by one of accepted versions "Anti-Roma sentiment" should be changed "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy".(KIENGIR (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

-Sorry, I still don't understand what you are proposing. I oppose the use of "controversy" title, the section is about anti-Roma sentiment, all examples given demonstrate this according to according to RS. To argue that Fidesz is not the governing party of Hungary is not valid, reliable sources say it is. The fact it is in coalition with another similar party is neither here nor there. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

- I am sorry that you don't understand (a simple insertion of a text between to pharagraphs in case as a section-title header, you should read back carefully and slowly - if you referred to this, or something else?)

- a section title header does not relate to source, but a choice, and yes, there are cases which are controversial

- my argumentation is valid, obvious facts we don't distort because of inaccurate sources. Fidesz is just one of the governing parties, it is amazing you wish to present otherwise.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

I'm sorry there is no nice way to say this, your English makes it very difficult to understand your points, and it is very often combined with vague and allusive statements and references to statements you have made in the past that were themselves vague and allusive.

Fidesz is frequently referred to as the "governing Fidesz party" in reliable sources, and the term "governing party" is used to refer to the dominant party in a coalition. If you wish we can change it to "Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition."

Well, despite I do consider my language is rather akin sometimes with mathematical and logical expression formulas made compact in a declarative form, in which for some is hard to extract the variables and put together, but if you especially point what is not clear, will make it clear more sharply.

Again, it is not about what is "frequently called", obvious facts which may be as well extracted from much more reliable and pertinent sources, as well here from the main pages, and in an article not directly related we don't invent an alternate reality. The country is neither governed by the Fidesz party, nor the Fidesz party leadership, and even the source does not assert this on that ominous sentence, I see enough just wikilinking the party like we agreed by Jeszenszky.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I am not prepared to cede any ground here. The statement that Fidesz is the governing party of Hungary is widely supported by RS, and the fact you find it to be "ominous" is entirely irrelevant to whether it should appear in the article. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Here must be a misunderstanding, when I said ominous I meant another meaning which may be used differently in an another language, it's my fault, sorry. So what I wanted to say, the source on the exact sentence tells about the Fidesz party leadership, and not anything related with governing, so I don't see any point to assert this because I just explained to you why we cannot present erroneus statements as facts. The country's is governed by the Hungarian government, and two parties are in governing position.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

The article refers to fidesz as "Orbán and his ruling party". The fact there is a formal coalition does not change the fact that RS use the term "governing party". I have offered a compromise aalready, if you don't want that we can simply put "Victor Orban's ruling party" as the RS says. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Before considering about your offers, do you understand that we cannot present opinions as facts? (regardless an RS tell such, the facts reinforced by other articles and RS tell otherwise, and you cannot present alternate realities. It's like you'd say e.g the Federal Reserve is governing the US, not the Democratic party by an RS where it is assumed the true power behind would be differents as legally is (anyway, it is not just formal, the two parties bounded has to reach/jump an additive, doubled barrier to enter to the parliament).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC))

What do you feel is unfactual about the statement "governing party" or "ruling party"? It is used by tens of thousands of RS with reference to Fidesz? Do you perhaps misunderstand the term? It simply means the party in government or the more powerful party in a coalition government. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But I just explained - even more times earlier (first two questions)...."governing/ruling party" solely would suggest the party is standalone ruling/governing, which is incorrect.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC))

I also offered you the compromise of writing "the lead party in Hungary's governing coalition".(please answer here not after my next post) Boynamedsue (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What you offered was a bit different, but would look like this: "In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer...", for this I would say ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

Ok, is that text, or very close to it, ok for you? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the text you introduced. It's ok, but because of your recurrent non-understanding below, I reiterate the third time, this does not mean this issue is solved since one point still left to discuss.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

Anti-Roma sentiment

Now, what do you want to do with the well-sourced Anti-Roma sentiment section, which, for some reason, you deleted? I oppose the addition of "controversy" to the title. Could you explain any other changes you wish to make in simple English, without trying to use elaborate language that you do not fully control. You need to refer to specific changes you wish to see in the text rather than general statements. Please refer to this text as the version we are discussing. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless you opened a new section here and asked me to reply here, I tell you in advance we did not finish the earlier issue yet, which is just very partially related (I told you above, I put three points to be settled so I would agree all personal manifestations regarding Bayer to be removed, etc., I won't repeat here all the details, they may be read above). Thus, I just discuss that point. As it may also be read above, not an entire section was removed, the details and reasons are as well were explained (and if you claim something about me regarding langauge, I could claim about you regarding comprehension, because I again have to repeat things I already told), etc. I already told as well where and how it may be reinstated, but now we are just discussing about the section title apart from anything else, I have to reiterate this. Since all the section (with or without the full content) contains controversial issues, hence that amedment has to be added, simple neutrality.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

A disagreement about a section title does not warrant the mass removal of sourced content from an article, unless you have reason to believe the content itself is not supported by RS. I am referring specifically to the first two paragraphs of the "Anti-Roma sentiment" section, which you have made no comment about up to now.

Is there anything other than the the Bayer question and the title of the section which you disagree with in the text of the edit which I linked? Please clarify with reference to the text of the article, stating the words you wish to be changed or removed. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, you did not understand anything, I am amazed (which part you don't understand from my 13:35, 21 January 2021 entry?)....A disagreement about a section title does not warrant the mass removal of sourced content from an article -> Such did not happen, read back the multiple explanations you've got so many times, also today, and before...thus your following question is not applicable, since it just shows the same, completely not understanding what I told you, even in the top of the above section...read back please and directly highlight which part you don't understand. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

I understand that you have problems with the initial two paragraphs of the anti-Roma sentiment which you deleted could you outline them specifically WITH REFERENCE TO THE TEXT. Please refer to wiki policies:

Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments. The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma. According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open. A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident. This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime". According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma. The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups. The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes.

It is essential that you detail your concerns specifically, as this is sourced content and you have not yet given any detailed argumentation of what it is you object to. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you again ignore/don't understand what I said.

- (i) I understand that you have problems with the initial two paragraphs of the anti-Roma sentiment -> no you don't understand, hence the further contemplation/deduction regarding this is not applicable

- (ii) ...and you have not yet given any detailed argumentation... -> straw man fallacy, the subject is not this, as you still did not understand what I was talking about

• I asked you to highlight which part you don't understand from my 13:35, 21 January 2021 entry? You did not highlight anything, quote me if needed (and please in the future concentrate especially what I have said and do not deteriorate to possibly misunderstood directions, save time not just for yourself, but respect other editors editing time, don't worry if it needs, I will give you direct quotes and highlights even from my own, but you have to understand the basic roots we are discussing about).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

In your edit 13:35, 21 January 2021 you do not state any specific problems you have with the text above. In fact, only one sentence even refers to the text of the article, and even then, indirectly. Unless you talk about specific points, it is impossible for us to discuss this. Do you have any problems with specific parts of the above text? Boynamedsue (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

- (pre) "In your edit 13:35, 21 January 2021 you do not state any specific problems you have with the text above" -> because not this is the issue now, and I explained, and my "indirect" references pointed the place where you were explained the reasons. Since you're continously circling on your mistaken path, I have to now qoute myself to hopefully enlight you (and I am very sorry despite I asked you again, you refused to quote me which part you don't understand, so any impossibility is just and only on you!

Let's reiterate:

- (i) on 17:11, 8 January 2021 & 18:02, 8 January 2021, in my entries you were explained about the situation (as many times earlier indeed). A or B.

- (ii) afterwards, you switched to the Bayer content, as asked for negotiation under what conditions I would agree to remove all personal manifestations about the issue, so just the introductory sentence would remain with the quote

- (iii) on 14:52, 11 January 2021, you were explained what would be these three conditions. Since then two we settled, but not settled the third one yet.

- (iv) on 08:06, 20 January 2021, you opened a new section (this one), erroneously implying it would be about the third issue solely, but after my immediate reply on 13:35, 21 January 2021 you were explained the previous issue is unfinished, and only distantly related by the section title which should be reinstated anyway (stated on 16:44, 13 January 2021, the first point), regardless of any future solution of A or B concerning on that part.

- (v) Thus, until the third issue is not settled, I won't discuss the other pharagraphs issue in detail by any means (because we should go on in sequential order, to say nothing of your understanding problems, the less complication, the more easier), on the other hand why that removal happened has been as well explained already in the entry I referred at point (i), that's why you should stop preteding/implying other causes and/or ignoring/coining the issue of the discussion with straw man fallacies.

- (vi) Do you understand now fully the situation? (if not, you have to directly quote me about it, as indicated in (pre).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

Ok, I think we are going to have to go to some kind of arbitration with this. It's not really up to you to lay down the rules of how/in what order your mass deletion of sourced content should be discussed, and if you wanted to, you should at least make some effort to clearly propose a scheme by which this could happen. I will outline my understanding of what we have agreed on so far at a later date, to make sure it's clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. Why do not you take a break for a week? You both could edit articles about other subjects and meanwhile try to understand each other's concerns. Have a nice day. :) Borsoka (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue,

with all of my good faith I have to tell, what you do is the problem of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT. Given my near ten year experience, at such point with such demonstrations (5++ repetitions, logical and highlighted declarative explanations) I've never met any editor who would not get the point (or if any, they had to leave our community), and this is not even a hard issue (any arbitration would have the same outcome, since the evidence is here, which you continuously reject. Let's see:

really up to you to lay down the rules -> our policies lay down, which I followed and explained to you, countless times

how/in what order your mass deletion of sourced content should be discussed -> you started and implied the order, per your proposal to discuss the Bayer issue, which is unfinished, and you wish to conflate it with something else and imply another issue which you invented, although it has been explained why it is not the case

you should at least make some effort to clearly propose a scheme by which this could happen -> Oh my Gush, Jesus Christ, Maria Nostra, this is what I am doing on and on, please stop to claim such jokes, in my previous 16:32, 22 January 2021 entry everything was explained to you (as before all the time, overly). The error is on your side.

Borsoka,

your comments are refreshing :), I hope Boynamedsue will take your advice, I have doubts unfortunately he/she made real efforts to understand the obvious, I have no problem understanding this editor. It is so easy, since Boynamedsue arbitrarily removed sourced contents which he/she did not like, despite being told only those additions have consensus in which other additions and NPOV repairs will come along them, which means we present everything, or none of them (this was the base of any future consensus, laid down much earlier). I supported all along as well the full inclusionist approach, then when he/she again started to remove sourced content, the last time I tried the other option, and removed all that section (inlcuding what he/she wanted to remove). In the end it means unfortunetly Boynamedsue cannot decide which horse to ride, falsely thinking about riding two at once maybe possible, and even dare to claim I removed sourced content, but forget the other part of the story, which have been numerous times told, demonstrated, even here and even in the edit logs, by revision timestamps (which show status quo ante revisions on the concerning parts). I hope this editor is not deliberately playing with my nerves, but I have some concerns. Not understanding that case B is the direct consequence of Boynamedsue's removal of sourced content as explained more times even preliminary in cohenerence with the consensus proposals and policies etc. is the cutting edge, since I all the time endorsed case A before. So, the editor should take your advice and after e.g. one week with a fresh and cold head really to manage to understand this not so really hard thing.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

Summary of items agreed upon above

Agreed upon:

• No mention of support for Fidesz should be made with regards to Géza Jeszenszky.

• The following text should be deleted from the paragraph on Zsolt Bayer, and no mention should be made of Lakatos: "However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics initially strongly criticised the statement, but later defended Bayer, suggesting that Bayer's comments were not his genuine opinion. Fidesz communications chief Máté Kocsis was even more supportive of Bayer, saying critics of Bayer's article were "siding with" Roma murderers, even though nobody had been murdered in the attack to which Bayer had referred."

• The text "In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer" should become "In 2013, the Fidesz party, the largest party in the governing coalition, refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer" or similar.

Could KIENGIR please confirm that they agree with that? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your summarization is again incomplete and not precise at some points. Thus, I have to summarize it appropriately (and everything is meant to be asserted to the current revision to the article):

Proposal 1) The sentence "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the Fidesz-supporting ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other."" ----------changes to-------> "In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other.""

Porposal 2) The section "In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:" ----------changes to-------> "In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:"

Proposal 3) After the sentence "The government was forced to pay damages to the Roma victims.[86]" a section title should be inserted which should be "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy".

Consensus proposal has been: - in case of Proposal 1) and Proposal 2) and Proposal 3) are fulfilled, then in the article above the Jeszenszky pharagraph the following may be inserted:

---

In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:"

"a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method."

---

• We have settled 1), 2), but not 3) yet.

That said, take a break because today I won't spend more time with you repeating obvious things, and better will edit other articles, I strongly recommend you anytime in case you'd answer anything think twice if you really understood everything to avoid stealing precious editing time from other editors. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

I understand all of that, but disagree with adding the "and controversy" to the title, as it goes against the precedent of other wikipedia articles on forms of racism and the article should deal with well-sourced examples of anti-Roma sentiment. Now what is your proposal to do with the following well-sourced text which you deleted without discussion:

Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments. The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma. According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open. A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident. This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime". According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma. The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups. The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes. 

There is very little chance we will reach any agreement on the title, and I simply wish for you to make what you want to do with this section clear.

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I hope to take this article to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, following dispute resolution procedures as I suggested on several occasions prior to the reluctant intervention of Ymblanter. As this requires KIENGIR to agree to particpate, I have left a comment on his talk page asking him to say whether he wishes to participate within 14 days. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(i) - (Prop 3):

- "...goes against the precedent of other wikipedia articles..." -> not true, I just checked some articles, they do not have even such section or title

- "There is very little chance we will reach any agreement..." -> it you want to achieve consensus, you have to work on it, propose more alternatives, take in consideration the other party's arguments as well. In this article, so far nearly 90% your point have been allowed to manifest, filled with nearly 10% outside NPOV repair, so obviously it's on you, and my proposals are totally correct - my generosity is as well unprecedented - since if we resolve this issue, already 95% your point would be presented in the article, and it depends in one word...so just don't blame others, and think twice.

(ii) - Boynamedsue's repeated question with recurrent erroneus implications:

I am really sorry you probably again did not chose to carefully analyze/interpret the answers I gave you, detailed, with definitive with timestamps and content, and as well that you rejected to highlight and quote what you did not understand from them - thus I could assume you understood everything, but if you would, you would not ask again this question repeatedly. You have to take the time and effort, otherwise what you do is disruptive, don't expect others will do the job which you have to. That said, from now on, I won't repeat anything anymore just will use timestamps or diffs, so you won't be able to misuse my efforts and time of repetitive explanations, which you anyway fully ignore and continously pretend to be non-existent.

- "Now what is your proposal to do with the following well-sourced text which you deleted without discussion:" -> again, this statement is again not true (and this is not the first you imply this, despite your were warned more times not to do that, but this is the last time I warn you, and I am very sorry I have to do repetitions because of you). The discussions opened since September contain the general reason, in which it was outlined your additions will only have consensus if you let them amended with the necessary NPOV repair. Despite, you started to remove sourced content from that section on 18 December repeteadly and continued edit warring. I all the time restored the last stable version, which included fully everything. After you totally ignored everything told, you have been explicitly explained in the entry of 04:44, 8 January 2021 what might happen and why, in accordance per our policies. Even my revision which performed this, contained this information in the edit log. It has been even afterwards explained again, the following four entries on that day in the talk (cumulative 5++ (!)). Then again, when you opened a new section again in the 17:11, 8 January 2021 & 18:02, 8 January 2021 entries. I could stop here, but just for the record, again yesterday twice 16:32, 22 January 2021, 18:39, 22 January 2021 (the latter even with bold highlight, that's already 9++ (!!))...

Very shortly, if you are still unable to understand in case without consensus you are abusing a part of the article, per policy it has to be restored to the previous version, before any of us touched that part, then not just DRN, but nothing may help you, the outcome would be the same, anyone may diagnose similarly you don't understand and or ignore the facts/discussions/policies. Ymblanter understood even without having time to dig into the issue hardly, because he understoods our policies along with many other members - even average editors with less experience - of our community, which you failed to comprehend fully since months.

Consequently, on this part (and as well the Bayer part) consensus is needed for reinstatement to the article. The Bayer issue is almost finished, this part has not even been started, because you did not even grasp what is the issue. That said, from now on you are ->unable to claim<- you were not explained everything, an in case of recurrent pretensions of non-understanding will not be accepted from your behalf. Hence your DRN request is a bit early - as your non-understanding of guidelines and policies is a different issue -, hence disussion and consensus building may follow here, we have enough time.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

You state that it was necessary to revert to the last consensus. The sourced text which you mass deleted had been in the article for three months, largely unchallenged. You still refuse to identify particular passages which you consider to be biased, so no further discussion of it is possible.

The mass deletion of sourced comment is not in any way connected to the title issue, or to the Bayer issue, and your attempt to make restoration of sourced comment, or even the detailed discussion of the same, dependent on you getting your way on two other questions is in violation of wikipedia policies on deletion of sourced content. If you have a problem with the content you must justify it on its own terms, not in reference to separate questions.

You have made no justification for the change of title to "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" except that you consider the comments of Bayer not to be examples of anti-Roma sentiment. Academic RS state that it is such. People in his own party say it is such, therefore it can be stated in wikivoice to be so. I do not accept your proposal to change the title for this reason. Even if it is not, ultimately, found to be justified to include Bayer, the title "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" is replacing a strong clear title with a weak one.

I feel discussing further with you here is entirely futile, unless you are prepared to discuss the reasons you feel the sourced text you mass-deleted is biased. You have a couple of weeks to decide if you wish to participate in the DRN, in the meantime I will not be posting on this page unless you have a change of heart and wish to discuss the two paragraphs you deleted from the beginning of the "Anti-Roma sentiment" section. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(i) "The sourced text which you mass deleted had been in the article for three months, largely unchallenged." -> again you started to delete from this section which had been in the article for three months, largely unchallenged, so the outcome was the direct result of your edit-warring actions, as just was explained to you today, stop coining the situation!

(ii)"You still refuse to identify particular passages which you consider to be biased" -> Straw man argumentation again, the reason was just explained by the 13:23, 23 January 2021 entry, thus I don't have to identify particular passages, because you were already told that solution A contains these two pharagraphs as well next to the other content which belongs to it and you tried to remove repetitively

(iii)"The mass deletion of sourced comment is not in any way connected to the title issue, or to the Bayer issue" -> (I assume you wanted to say sourced content, not comment) it is connected to your edit warring, when you started to delete sourced content from the article as explained by the today 13:23, 23 January 2021 entry

(iv) "two other questions is in violation of wikipedia policies on deletion of sourced content" -> no per policy the page had to be rollbacked to the status quo because of your actions, in line with the talk page discussion and policies as explained as well by the today 13:23, 23 January 2021 entry

(v) "If you have a problem with the content you must justify it on its own terms, not in reference to separate questions." - same like (ii), WP:IDHT from your behalf

(vi) "...except that you consider the comments of Bayer not to be examples of anti-Roma sentiment..." -> nope, the Pásztor case and the Jeszenszky case is as well controversial, nobody said that title just goes for the Bayer issue

(vii) "I feel discussing further with you here is entirely futile, unless you are prepared to discuss the reasons you feel the sourced text you mass-deleted is biased..." -> WP:IDHT, as per (ii) & (v), the whole discussion may be entirely futile because you fail to recognize the issue, despite you were explained over 10 times, evidence here ([1]) that you cannot claim anymore you weren't explained everything in/with full details/causes, so you either do it deliberately or by lacking competence.

(viii) "...if you wish to participate in the DRN, in the meantime I will not be posting on this page unless you have a change of heart and wish to discuss the two paragraphs"... -> you have been explained the DRN is not meant for your refusal of understading facts/discussions/policies, it has nothing to do with my heart, but your erroneus assumption about the issue, which has been already debunked. Consequently, your answer again proved unfortunately as one of the previous assumptions, and as I told pretending non-understanding (willfully or not) will not be anymore an option to you.

Hence, either you continue consensus building on one section (Bayer), and after the other section, or as I said, choose the solution A, which includes everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

I would ask you to assume good faith. Your communication in English is very difficult for me to understand. However, you seem to have clarified a little. It is therefore your view that the two paragraphs of sourced content you removed, and which I have linked twice above, can only be valid content if mentions of the minor Fidesz-supporter with a self-declared feudal title, Attila Lakatos, mentioned in one RS in Hungarian, are also included? That is your perception of what you call "Solution A"? Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If I would not assume good faith, I would not put so much time for the explanations. "you seem to have clarified a little" I have to take as your personal stance, since my argumentations understandability is far beyond any English skills, it's for a time an issue of semantical and logical understandability. I won't repeat - and again wasting time - the discussions about the person you mention, those may be read above wht what was said there holds. "Solution A" means what I have defined you multiple times, so I cannot understand why don't you read back and make me the work instead of you, when you were provided timestamps? Solution A means including everything, both the Bayer section and the other section, as it was before you started to delete contents from it.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

OK, I have read back multiple times and your English and repeated refusal to clearly state your position does not allow me to say with certainty what your position is. Could you confirm to me whether what I said is correct? Do you feel that the restoration of the first two paragraphs of the Anti-Roma sentiment section should be contingent on the inclusion of the opinions of Attila Lakatos? Boynamedsue (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I am going to stop here actually. You have provided no defence of excluding the 2 paragraphs, except that seem to you feel they must not be there unless the opinions of one man, supported by one source, are included. The first two paragraphs are supported by multiple academic sources which allows us to use wikivoice, and should not be made contingent on the inclusion of the opinion of one man quoted in a newspaper. I'm going to present my final opinion on the text in the next few days. Have a think and see if you want to be part of the DRN. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

- "and repeated refusal to clearly state your position does not allow me to say with certainty what your position is" -> No, you have been told multiple times, evindence above. Solution A, or solution B, or other consensus we build, one trial started (2 points agreed at first step) which you did not continue yet. So not any means you can say, I did not tell my position clearly, I did not just on 18:02, 8 January 2021 (along many other entries), but as well 17:12, 23 January 2021. You have a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue, no doubt after this.

- regarding the your second question, obviously, and explained why.

- "You have provided no defence of excluding the 2 paragraphs" -> You should be ashamed, on 13:23, 23 January 2021 at point (ii) you where explained the reasons (which are indeed a collection of multiple earlier explanations), in case you again try to deny evidence, the result may be a civility issue. Don't forget WP is an incremental platform, denying facts are sad trials here. On the other hand, if you cannot still understand what means consensus building, it's a huge problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

Final position of Boynamedsue, prior to proposed DRN

• 1.The section title “Anti-Roma sentiment” should be restored.

There are large numbers of pages following the formula “Anti-(ethnic group) sentiment”, for example: 1, 2, 3

There is ample content from academic sources which shows Anti-Roma sentiment to be a particular problem in Hungary (alongside other European countries, particularly in the former Eastern Block), for example: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [[7]] (all academic sources)

The content included in this section before its mass deletion was relevant to the article and were all clearly examples of anti-Roma sentiment as defined in RS.

• 2. The first two paragraphs of the ‘Anti-Roma Sentiment’ section should be restored.

The section is fully sourced by Academic RS and documents systematically and neutrally the pertinent facts of the case. No coherent arguments have been offered against the neutrality of the text, except that it constitutes “opinion”, even if that were the case, it would not warrant mass deletion. However, the text is in fact based on academic books and articles, all RS which neutrally document the nature of Anti-Roma sentiment in Hungary. The wealth and depth of reliable sources allows us to use wikivoice in these paragraphs.

The only substantive criticisms which have been made to this text are of this phrase: "Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments."

KIENGIR felt that there were periods in which Hungarian governments did not engage in Anti-Roma policy, the Communist period being specifically mentioned. However the use of “often” and “several” make this criticism redundant, and there are in any case RS which document Anti-Roma policies by the same governments.

Despite several requests, no further problems with the text have been suggested.

• 3. The statements of Attila Lakatos have no place in the text:

Attila Lakatos is an individual with a modest media profile in Hungary, he is often called “Voivode of the gypsies of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County” which is an unofficial title which has no particular meaning or status. Some RS refer to him as “the self-declared voivode”.

Quote 1:

Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon: “Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable."

Notwithstanding the defective English of this text, and the use of the word “approved” without any suggestion of what it might be he is approving of, this quote is sourced from a local news website interview, that may not be RS, and does not satisfy the criteria of notability for inclusion. This is especially true when many, many more prominent individuals who have expressed opinions of the so-called “gypsy crime” phenomena in national and international RS are not cited in the text.

Quote 2:

Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description.

Apart from the defective English, this is supported a reliable source, a national Hungarian website. However, it is only one opinion of a private individual, found in only one RS, and again suffers from selection bias, violating WP:WEIGHT. There are many, many more qualified people who could be cited, and to make this private opinion relevant we would have to quote all of them.

I feel the inclusion of his opinions in the text is an attempt to provide WP:FALSEBALANCE, on the question of so-called “gypsy crime”, a racist moral panic emerging from the extreme right. This is also the case with his support of the racist statements of Zsolt Bayer. When even members of Bayer’s own party considered his statement to be unacceptable, Lakatos’s opinions are WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, If the opinions of an individual as insignificant as Lakatos are to be included, it can only be logical to find hundreds of quotes from better known individuals to create true WP:BALANCE. To my mind, it is far better to omit, but I am open to a process by which the diverse comments of many individuals are added…as long is it’s not me who has to put the work in!

• 4. Zsolt Bayer’s racist comments should be included.

The anti-gypsy comments of Zsolt Bayer were widely reported around the world as examples of anti-gypsy discourse. We have quotes from the BBC, Der Spiegel, the Guardian and various academic sources. I am indifferent over whether the further comments on the scandal of senior members of the Hungarian government should be included, though I don’t see any reason why not.

• 5. Contingency

KIENGIR has stated that the restoration of the two paragraphs of sourced text which they deleted must be contingent on the restoration of the Lakatos statement at the end of the second paragraph. This is a mass deletion of sourced content with the objective of using its restoration as a bargaining chip to force through the edits they wish to see included, and is unacceptable behaviour for a wikipedia editor. Their claim that the text is not WP:NPOV has no weight, as they have refused to discuss in what way they believe it to be so, despite frequent invitations to do so: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

I believe this to constitute disruptive editing.

They also state that Zsolt Bayer’s racist statements can only be included if the section is renamed “Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy”. There are ample RS which identify Bayer’s comments as “anti-Roma”, there is no need to change the section title in order to make the text agree with RS.

Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I will react below all of your points:

• 1 - in case of Solution A or other consensus building trial (which Boynamedsue seems interrupted now), I support also a section title, but like Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy. The rest is again a straw man argumentation from the user this the question was not if anti-Roma sentiment would exist in Hungary, but the some cases would be as well listed under it are controversial. As well, linking to other article titles does not count here, since e.g. the Romani people in Slovakia and Romani people in Romania does not have such section titles.
• 2 - in case of Solution A, the two sections restoration would be warranted, at is has been the subpart of the removed content, and this solution would restore the full content as it was before Boynamedsue's content removal (hence it's irrelevant on what part what kind of debates we had, since those have been already settled)
• 3
  • - Quote 1 (default part of solution A) is supported by definetly an RS, and this issue have been already discussed, and the outcome Boynamedsue did not respect or wanted to accept, even tried to coin our rules or other users stance on this to claim removal, but this eventually failed (discussion above at the end of the violence section). That allegation only this opinion would be expressed is not true, since Margit Feischmidt opinion is also there and even others could be attributed from the sources.
  • - Quote 2 (default part of solution A) it is not necessarily clear what Boynamedsue would mean on a national website, it is a website of one of the opposition's most prominent and greatest news conglomerate, including national broadcoast, which is very unfortunate when Boynamedsue tried to tackle it with lame arguments, as we again see such unprofessional trial, so WP:WEIGHT/BALANCE/FALSEBALANCE/FRINGE is out of question, a contrary what the user said, the quote was put after other personal manifestations which Boynamedsue added, and they were even in majority :) An ardent example of WP:I just don't like it and cherrypicking and the total ignorance of NPOV, as a general problem since the user started to edit this article.
• 4 default part of solution A, or the consensus building trial which was referred at point 1. Only not part of Solution B.
• 5 Amazing & (sadly) amusing, Boynamedsue's statements are double reinforcing the WP:COMPETENCE issue I was suspecting a time ago. If this editor considers really the application of WP's community guidelines and policies "...is unacceptable behaviour for a wikipedia editor...", after the user's recurrent ignorance of our policies - despite always drawn the attention them in advance in the talk page - is really awesome. It is much sad that Boynamedsue again does not tell the truth by claiming "Their claim that the text is not WP:NPOV has no weight..."; consequently something that was not said could not be "..refused to discuss in what way they believe it to be so..". Too bad, the selected diffs of the user even reinforcing this, how I try to explain him/her that the recurrent erroneus assertion the user pushed is invalid. These are such a striking evidence of the problems I outlined, disruptive editing is on the contrary is the user recurrently perform an WP:IDHT pattern, despite over 10 (!!!) times he/she was explained about this and warned ([14]), ([15]), ([16]) (these diffs are even a collective description of the problematic phenomenon, but referring all to the earlier explanations, which are numerous), but still even today the user dared to deny evidence ("You have provided no defence of excluding the 2 paragraphs"), so I had to again inform him/her ([17]).

• Summa summarum, despite the user's edits have been 90% accepted (which needed serious NPOV repairs and amendments (10%) due to the user's lack of expertise in the subject and POV language, etc.), all this show from the user's behalf is unnecessary, and I am very said the generosity towards this user have not been eventaully respected, and the recurrent denial of evidence makes it much worse, a hard showcase of sealioning which is something that should be utterly avoided in our community.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

Ok, we have already disagreed at great length. If you want to take part in a DRN, you have until a week on Friday to agree before I look at other measures. If you do want to participate, it would probably be in your interest to think of how you will clearly state your case for other editors.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW, you did ask me a specific linguistic question, out of politeness I will clarify. "national" in English refers to an organisation/situation/characteristic/whatever that operates at a country-wide level, as opposed to a local, regional or international level. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The burden is not on me, I am ready to discuss as always, you've been offered even three generous solutions, and one of them you instantly interrupted although there was a little left, although it would again served your favor, that would represent that nearly 95% of your will would be followed, etc. I proved I am ready to make concessions for a good and wise consensus, you unfortuately don't go this direction (other average discussion nearly result/stuck at 50%-50%). Instead of thinking of measures, you shoulf follow the guidelines of our community, and continue conensus building, denying evidence won't lead to anything good. Regarding "how you will clearly state your case for other editors", I don't see any problem, any average editor will mostly understand what you did not manage, which resulted in this huge wall of text (only this may confuse anyone), I may summarize it even in one sentence with nearly three limbs, with references. I understood the same on "national", however the website operates at international level by default, as it's accesibility is not restricted to national level.

In order to seriously consider your offer about DRN, you should specify which would be the subject of the debate exactly, since if it would be about that one based on your erroneus statements denying evidence of explanation, highlighted in my recent answer (5), then it is not a DRN issue, as I pinpointed more times. (KIENGIR (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

The discussion would be about all aspects of disagreement. The title of the section, the inclusion of the first two paragraphs you deleted, the inclusion of Lakatos and the inclusion of Bayer, plus whatever you wanted to talk about. An overview of the process is available here: Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It cannot be about all aspects of disagreement, since it is for content issues (your obsession with the so-called "two-pharagraph" issue does not belong there, since that part had to be rollbacked because you started to remove content from it). Btw. all you listed are already part of solution B, A, as well our consensus building trial which you abandoned almost before resolution - because of one word - instead of giving further solution proposals that you were capable of the first two step (e.g. rename the "violence against Roma" to "anti-Roma sentiment", and create under a subsection controversy, I just told one), it would be quite odd and undesirable to again steal precious time even from other editors because of your lack of contructive collaboration/understanding.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

I do not accept that the only options are what you call solution A and solution B, as I feel that to be inconsistent with the correct interpretation of wikipedia policies on content. However you can present that position at the DRN, just as I can present my position. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait are you suggesting that the mass-deleted two paragraphs will be restored in BOTH your solution A and your solution B? And could you possibly answer this question directly without reference to any statement you have made before. Simple "yes" or "no" will do. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not say the only options would be A and B, however these are the two initial options, while we started a to negotiate a third one (that one you seem abandoned,anyway all options are conform with our policies). Sorry, it's really amazing if you still did not grasp what those options mean, and you wish me again to define them the nth time? No, not both. Solution A contains everything (last stable version), solution B is the version before any editing happened on the respective areas (a direct result of your recurrent removals).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

• I’m a little late to the party here an I will admit that I have tried and failed to follow the hydra of a discussion above. That being said I support the addition of the section Anti-Roma sentiment as seen in this diff [18]. I see no convincing argument from KIENGIR against its use and WP:DUEWEIGHT would appear to be overwhelming in favor of inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: do you think you can sum up your argument against inclusion for me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I asked you to retract these comments based on our discussion, since I won't support cloning, as well won't answer because of procedural reasons as the DRN is open (btw. your first remark shows the failure, since I proposed more solutions, in which the section you refer is included. Note: I was pinged here, as well in the other discussion, but I have a limited time, I need a bit more to catch-up).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

RFC on Hungarian Romani

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nearly unanimous consensus to implement Option A The only objection is from a user now community banned for a pattern of behavior similar to what led to the necessity of holding this RfC and as such are treated as "irrelevant arguments". The remaining concerns expressed about the exact details of Option A can be addressed through the normal editing cycle. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Please specify which of the following changes should be made to the article. A Survey section follows; please answer A, B, or C (or any equivalent) in the Survey. You may engage in threaded discussion in the section for the purpose, remembering that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In the article on Hungarian Romani, should a subsection be added at the end of the section on Discrimination, Racism, and Social Exclusion, on Anti-Roma Sentiment? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Subsection on Anti-Romani Sentiment

Please choose A, B, or C is neither, in which case no subsection will be added.

In the Survey section, please specify A, B, or C. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A.

Anti-Roma Sentiment

Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments. A 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma. According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open. A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident. This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime". According to sociologist Margit Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, leading to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma. The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups. The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes.

Members of mainstream Hungarian political parties have been accused nationally and internationally of having racist anti-Roma views and positions according to the prevailing standards in the EU. The police chief of Miskolc, Albert Pásztor, who was dismissed from his position and reassigned to another after being accused of making anti-Roma statements, then reinstated following protests, was selected as joint mayoral candidate for the Hungarian Social Democrats and Democratic Coalition in 2014. He declared that certain types of crime were committed exclusively by Roma people and when challenged reiterated his views and claimed they were summarized from the local police reports. As the keeping of ethnic crime statistics contravenes Hungarian law, a representative from the Alliance of Free Democrats enquired as to whether Pásztor had compiled a private archive of crime statistics. Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime.

In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition, refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:

"a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method."

However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics initially strongly criticised the statement, but later defended Bayer, suggesting that Bayer's comments were not his genuine opinion. Fidesz communications chief Máté Kocsis was even more supportive of Bayer, saying critics of Bayer's article were "siding with" Roma murderers, even though nobody had been murdered in the attack to which Bayer had referred. Later Bayer declared his words had been taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, he denied racial discrimination and stated that he wished to segregate from society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper.

In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other." Jeszenszky claimed that these statements, which he said were based on wikipedia, were not racist, and he received support from the Hungarian foreign ministry. Due to these comments, the Norwegian Institute of Holocaust and Religious Minorities asked Jeszenszky not to attend its International Wallenberg Symposium event.

Explanation by Proponent

Version A's added text contains sourced material explaining the nature of anti-Roma sentiment in Hungary, and giving examples which are considered to constitute anti-Roma racism and/or hate speech by reliable sources.

The differences between this version and version B are the following:

• Version A uses the title "Anti-Roma Sentiment", version B uses "Anti-Roma Sentiment and Controversies".

• Version A does not include two comments by Attila Lakatos, a self-styled "Roma Voivod" and minor media figure, with close links to the governing Fidesz party.

Reasoning for differences

• Difference 1. The title here is Anti-Roma Sentiment rather than Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy. The reason for this is that all the content of the section relates to incidents which reliable sources refer to as anti-Roma, racist, or constituting hate speech. The addition of "and controversy" suggests that some of them may not constitute examples of Anti-Roma sentiment, which contradicts the Reliable Sources.

• Difference 2: This is excluded from version A: Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon: "Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable." (This refers to the racist, per RS, talking point of "gypsy crime".)

1. Grammatical errors notwithstanding, this does not make sense. There is no indication in the text of what Lakatos "approved".

2. The source does not meet the criteria of notability. It comes from an interview with boon.hu, a regional Hungarian language website, for which no evidence of fact-checking exists. Regional sorces are not supposed to be used for national level stories, so as well as WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT is relevant.

3. Even if the source were valid it would still be WP:UNDUE to include the personal opinions of only one individual. If we include Lakatos a broad range of comments from individuals of differing political views would also be needed to satisfy WP:BALANCE

• Difference 3 This is excluded from version A: Afterwards, Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description (This refers to the hate speech, per RS, of Zsolt Bayer.)

There is one valid national level source for this quote, in a myriad of international and national sources relating to the racist diatribe of Zsolt Bayer. Dozens of individuals and writers gave their opinion on this matter, the only one (except government officials) quoted in Version B is Lakatos. This is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. The quote is deliberately selected with the aim of legitimising Bayer's hate speech.

TLDR: The title "Anti-Roma Sentiment" is justified by Reliable sources relating to each incident. Including only the personal opinions of Attila Lakatos is giving undue weight, makes neutrality impossible, and is designed to legitimise racist points of view.

Boynamedsue (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

B.

Anti-Roma sentiment and controversies
Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments. The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma. According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open. A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident. This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime". According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma. The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups. The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes. Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon:

"Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable."

Members of mainstream Hungarian political parties have been accused nationally and internationally of having racist anti-Roma views and positions according to the prevailing standards in the EU. The police chief of Miskolc, Albert Pásztor who was dismissed from his position and reassigned to another one after being accused of making anti-Roma statements, then reinstated following protests, was selected as joint mayoral candidate for the Hungarian Social Democrats and Democratic Coalition in 2014. He declared that some type of crimes are only commited by Roma people and when challenged reiterated his views and claimed they were summarized from the local police reports. As the keeping of ethnic crime statistics contravenes Hungarian law, a representative from the Alliance of Free Democrats enquired as to whether Pásztor had compiled a private archive of crime statistics. Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime.

In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:

"a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method."

However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics initially strongly criticised the statement, but later defended Bayer, suggesting that Bayer's comments were not his genuine opinion. Fidesz communications chief Máté Kocsis was even more supportive of Bayer, saying critics of Bayer's article were "siding with" Roma murderers, even though nobody had been murdered in the attack to which Bayer had referred. Later Bayer declared his words were taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, but denied racial discrimination and reinforced he wish to segregate from the society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper. Afterwards, Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description.

In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other." Jeszenszky claimed these declarations, which he claimed to be based on wikipedia, were not racist, and he received support from the Hungarian foreign ministry. Due to these comments, the Norwegian Institute of Holocaust and Religious Minorities asked Jeszenszky not to attend its International Wallenberg Symposium event.

Explanation by Proponent

• Differences: there are more differences, than the user presented above (e.g. wikilink to Jeszenszky, or other changes as well), I am very sorry the respresentation starts immediately in an imprecise way, nevertheless the reactions to that representation:
• DIFF 1 - Obviously the Pásztor and Bayer cases are controversial as well, since they were not motivated by racism, but they referred to specific subroups of criminals dealing with social issues, as an existing phenomenon inside the community (as the user lacks of expertise knowledge in the subject, commited reccurently inaccurate or misleading edits in the past, which was needed to be repaired/amended all the time)
• DIFF2 - the user repeats mostly the already refuted views, the Romas elect in their community voivodes , the suggestion to link it to any party is an obsessive part, despite other invidual opinions are three-times more are really connected to a party which surprisingly does not bother the user, etc.
  • 1. grammatical mistakes - if exist - may easily be corrected. As well, any copyedit may be performed, the statement is clearly understandble (what see now is again a new desperate n+1 invention against it, boring)
  • 2. Nope, the source is an RS, as well approved by other editor, and the source exactly from that region the the issue and phenomenon exist, on first hand, so as well WP:WEIGHT does not play here (the user adamantly tried to pursie erronous assertions for removal, finally an admin had to intervene end enlight him/her)
  • 3. As already mentioned above, the source is valid, after having added so many individual and one-sided opinions, he/she opposes any other addition because of personal dislike, just beucase different from those he/she added...that's all about WP:BALANCE, indeed what we would have here would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV, which in fact have been the general problem of the user's additions, WP:OWN is not an option (both versions constitute nearly 90% of the user's sole additions)
• DIFF 3 - There is a source that is the main voice of the opposition media, the greatest nationwide conglomerate, which among other individual opinions considered this as highly relevant (funnily the user first tried to argue it as it would be a pro-goverment media, which was quicly refuted, so new arguments had to be invented...). It is spuriously stated that it would be quoted, it is a misleading statement (alarming from now on) it is mentioned along with the other opninons, which the RS consider relevant, so WP:UNDUE does not play here, we've seen again a false assertion based on a false premise. Furthermore, the next statement is amazingly incorrect, since the only aim is WP:NPOV, which the user recurrently ignored, it cannot have connection to any legitimization by nature (the user possibly do not understand the meaning of the word, any declared statement of an individual has no legal affiliation, neither the one who comment on it).

• TDLR: The title "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" is justified by reliable sources relating to each incident, since the user added by itself controversial issues to the article under the same section, we don't ignore parts of the sources we don't like. As well not just Lakatos's statements are included, but other personal opinions which the user added by itself (!), so WP:FALSEBALANCE would only play if it would be ignored since we don't only represent one-sided views per WP:NPOV, as well it cannot legitimise (oh..again) racist POV, since the subject who opined is member of the Roma minority, so it is a complete BOOMERANG, as well and ardent example of WP:JDL and WP:OWN.

C.

(Neither of the above. No additional subsection.)

Survey

• Version A is my preference (as proposer). The title "Anti-Roma Sentiment" is justified by Reliable sources relating to each incident. Including only the personal opinions of Attila Lakatos is giving undue weight, makes neutrality impossible, and is designed to legitimise racist points of view. More detailed justifications can be found above. My second preference is Version B, as it at least details the extent of Anti-Roma sentiment, albeit in a biased way. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Version B, as explained (as proposer), full inclusion, without the violation of NPOV and several other guidelines, without the elimination of important parts of the full picture on spurious grounds. The title "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy" is justified by reliable sources relating to each controversial incident, since the section contains both of them. The continous misleading allegations of the content are disappointing, nonsense, since not just Lakatos's statements are included, but other personal opinions, the opposite would be neutrally impossible, if we would just represent one-sided statements. As well it cannot legitimise (oh..again and again :D) racist POV, since the subject who opined is member of the Roma minority. The situation is evident, a clear case study how far some may go in order identify something as a bias, in fact the opposite is true. Boring. Second preference version C.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC))
• Version A per Boynamedsue - Idealigic (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Version A, while not great, is still the best:
  • Currently most of the proposed text is under the "Violence against Roma" section which makes no sense, so an "Anti-Roma sentiment" section will be an improvement (although IMO the better approach would be to focus that section on academic knowledge about popular sentiment, and put the quotes / controversies in a separate section, "Public discourse" or "Political discourse" or something like that).
  • The proposed addition of the Lakatos quote is bordeline disinformation. This is a Roma politician (arguably an important one, but there are dozens of others of similar importance, and several who are quite more significant) making a talking point that's convenient to a political ally, being elevated into "the voice of the Roma people". Also note how vague that talking point is. This is important because...
  • "Gypsy crime", which would very much deserve a more thorough treatment, is based in this kind of fuzzyness. "Gypsy crime" is a rhetorical device that was at the center of then-ascendant far-right party Jobbik's narrative that the Roma are violent criminals and a danger to all the peaceful country folk, and they are the only ones who can cut through all the political correctness and restore peace and order. (As the Bayer quote shows, this narrative was later appropriated by Fidesz, when it was swapping places on the political palette with Jobbik.) "Gypsy crime" is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy: Roma were overrepresented in petty crime but somewhat underrepresented in violent crime (although I think the social sciences mainstream attributes both to demographic circumstances unrelated to ethnicity); Jobbik public figures tied the phrase "gypsy crime" to violent incidents like Olaszliszka, and when challenged, they pointed at studies documenting Roma participating at higher rates in minor property theft and such. Lakatos was feeding this misrepresentation, which should not be included in the article unchallenged.
  • Lakatos is of course being cherry-picked here because his comment fits the far-right narrative, but without that POV, it wasn't particularly important. It didn't have much of a media reaction (outside of the far right blogosphere), and he wasn't a particularly prominent politician at the time - if one wanted to quote one prominent Roma politician as some kind of representative, then (aside from how little sense that makes - you wouldn't quote a French politician as the representative of French people, right?) that would be either Csaba Kállai, the national head Roma Voivode at the time (who said something along the lines that perpetrators need to be punished, but not one should be held responsible for other people's crimes just because they are of the same ethnicity - source), or Orbán Kolompár, then president of the National Gypsy Council (who said that Olaszliszka was "not a Roma issue" - ruins of the source here, the newspaper has since been extinguished by the government).
  • I don't have strong feelings about the inclusion of the Bayer quote, but there you can at least argue that he is the most prominent pro-government journalist in Hungary and his comment was well outside the Overton window and resulted in lots of media reactions, even on the international level; and that the government's refusal to condemn it in any way was somewhat indicitive of their political calculations on anti-Roma sentiment. --Tgr (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you are spot on in many of your points. I certainly agree that there could be improvements to Version A. For me this RfC is about removing Lakatos to enable further progress. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the right way to include Lakatos would be to have a section about the concept of "gypsy crime" (which, even as a propaganda contruct, is fairly notable, it pretty much determined public discourse about the Roma in the 2000s; on huwiki it even has its own article), and describe the far-right's POV there (explicitly labeled as such). The above comment by Lakatos has been a major reference point within that POV so IMO it's reasonable to mention it in the article, as long as the context is explained. --Tgr (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have had no problem with that solution. I even proposed something like it at various points, my problem with the Lakatos quotes was always the fact they are being used to present racist POVs as factual, given the lack of context. Unfortunately, though, we are where we are. If, after the RfC, you wanted to take the paragraph on "gypsy crime" and alter and expand it into a subsection, you would meet no objection from me. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the quotes have not been used of such manner, no matter how many times your try endorse this spurious claim, since himself is as well a Roma. It is fact and well known phenomenon that some social subgroups who commit crime as well coming from that community. The catch is to avoid a misleading ostrich policy in which we would pretend the socio-cultural phenomenon mostly connected to a community (the hundreds of years or problematic or unfinished integration, shall be anyone's fault) would not exist.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC))

• Version A It looks like the best.Sea Ane (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Version A per WP:CSECTION, without prejudice of including discussed content that has due weight. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Version A - After trying to mediate the discussion that resulted in this issue, I understood A but not B. I tried to remain neutral, but now the proposer of Version B has been banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies for that DRN. If I'd known what I know now I'd have gone for a third opinion.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

References

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.

Jeszenszky quote

I removed "[Jeszenszky] claimed [his textbook paragraph on frequent mental illness amongst the Roma allegedly due to incest] to be based on wikipedia" as it's not very clear whether that was the case. After the initial wave of protests, the Roma Club Foundation organized a discussion panel with Jeszenszky and two scientists; it is there that he mentioned Wikipedia, but the exact context is unclear (several commentators remarked on it [19][20] but I don't think any tried to report him verbatim) - it could have been claiming Wikipedia as a source, but it also could have been something along the lines of "these are well-known facts, you can even find them on Wikipedia". Later, responding to further criticism, he pointed to some academic sources his textbook claim was allegedly based on (in which case he had used those sources wildly out of context, but that's probably too much detail for this article; I'm not sure this entire story is notable at all). --Tgr (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tgr, while not necessarily disagreeing with your edit, I think you have to revert it. The text (without "Fidesz-supporting") forms part of the RfC. In terms of notability, there are further academic sources in Version A which justify it. After the RfC is complete I wouldn't object to that edit, perhaps with clarification that the statements of Jereszensky were false (per RS). Boynamedsue (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

On further research, I did find an actual video and he does say that he is fairly sure he took that sentence from Wikipedia. (He also says that it's based on academic research, but, at least in that video snippet, doesn't specify.)

Wrt. the truth value of the claim, there is some research that mental disabilities are higher Roma than in the whole population, and that cousin marriage is also more frequent. (Although these tend to be small-scale, non-representative studies, and complicated by the definition of "Roma" - in a country where 80 years ago the government tried to systematically exterminate Roma people, recording ethnicity is of course a complicated issue and in most cases flat out illegal; researchers use various techniques to get around that, which inject some level of bias.) The claim about brother/sister marriage seems to be invented by Jeszenszky entirely though, likewise the claim that the higher rate of cousin marriage has anything to do with Roma culture (as opposed to extreme poverty and social isolation, which can be seen to have similar effects in many communities around the world); and experts consider the higher prevalence of mental illness to be primarily caused by the various effects of poverty (undernutrition and poor diet of the child and the pregnant mother, poor access to healthcare etc).

The text I changed is basically the same in the three RfC options, so this seems like an orthogonal issue and not blocked by it. I'm not familiar with enwiki RfC conventions though so feel free to apply them. --Tgr (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I missed the Ryder-Nagy-Rostás review in Version A on my first read; that's an excellent source, and its evaluation of the claim should IMO be included in the article. --Tgr (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done the revert now, we can have a look at how to rewrite that paragraph after. I agree about the Ryder-Nagy-Rostás review, it probably should be used more fully in the article. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I added Hungary portal.

I added Hungary portal because they are Hungarian citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.19.75.28 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Title

Title should be changed to "Romani Hungarians," as it wouldn't suggest that Romani are somehow not Hungarian citizens, and would be more in line with other articles about ethnicities in countries. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

IDK how to do this, though. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)