Talk:Fidesz

Catholicism?

The article repeatedly describes Fidesz as "adhering to the doctrines of the Catholic Church." How does this make sense if Orbán himself and many members of the party's political leadership are Hungarian Reformed? I agree that the party might be classed Christian nationalist, but is it really a vehicle for political Catholicism? KFan3 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This information was added 3 days ago by certain user and it was already removed two times, while the user reverted it back with other unsupported references. ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, it should be deleted. Even general “Christianity” would not be precise as there are several senior Jewish members of the party. ~2026-24457-32 (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You can have formally Christian parties with Jewish members. It’s just a little awkward but not unheard of Retr0r0cket (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

+1. The party is generally in line with catholic positions but there are exceptions and there are no official ties: Retr0r0cket (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Political position: Show change over time in infobox

The political position of Fidesz has changed so dramatically over time that it probably needs to be indicated in the infobox.

Something like:

1988-1993: Centre to centre-left (one of the most radical opposition parties)

1993-1995: Centre to centre-right (its most left-wing members left, but it was in alliance with the SZDSZ)

1995-2010: Centre-right to right-wing (joined alliance with the Hungarian Smallholders, government period, started to use nationalist rhetoric but criticised e.g. Jobbik)

2010-2014: Right-wing to far-right (started building the illiberal state, but did not focus on anti-immigration or anti-gender themes nearly as much e.g. rejection of a 2012 anti-LGBT bill, which they introduced themselves in 2023)

2014-present: Far-right (extreme anti-gender, anti-immigration, anti-liberal and radical nationalist themes)

The dates need to be moved and it likely needs to be simplified but this will give a better guide to the readers as to why Orban was saying "the foundation of our worldview is human rights" in 1989 - Skynorth/Starfrost^{my talk page} 23:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This should be clarified in the body IMO, not the infobox. Simply puting labels in the infobox without explaining why they were described as such is not helpful. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s a lot to add, not to mention the exact timing for this wouldn’t be agreed upon. I think labeling Fidesz as historically center-right to right-wing could be useful, but isn’t super high priority.

I’m not against the idea though. It’s really just a matter of how to add said details without just throwing more text onto the screen for the sake of it Retr0r0cket (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove authoritarianism

Why is authoritarianism in its ideology? It is a democratic party elected by the people, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can point fingers and call it fascist. Completely biased writers. Anything that isn't left is bad, oof. FadelAliKuznetsov (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is elected anymore - Skynorth/Starfrost^{my talk page} 13:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

it is not ideology. ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

But the party had a long track record of making Hungary more illiberal (I.e. authoritarian). They meet Wikipedia’s definition of it according to the article Retr0r0cket (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The Nazis were democratically elected at first. Doesn’t mean they weren’t totalitarian. Same principle applies here

Also nobody is calling them fascist Retr0r0cket (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Its section for list ideology only. For illustration see United Russia. ThecentreCZ (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Fidesz and United Russia are two different parties. United Russia has created a far more aggressive authoritarian regime

2. Illiberalism is listed as an ideology. Honestly that should be sufficient and Orban has explicitly advocated for it Retr0r0cket (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

How far more shouldn't be listed and less should be listed? No sense here. No, illiberalism isn't sufficent. We doesn't use these in Wikipedia infoboxes. List of political ideologies isn't determinitive for general identification of articles. In this list are listed authoritarianism, oligarchy or sarmatism. Non ideology. See article illiberalism: illiberal democracy is a non-democratic governing system that "hides its practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Funny you cite the illiberalism article because the way it's used in the article regarding Fidesz reinforces my point as they're explicitly railing against it (so their ideology is anti-liberal democracy i.e. illiberalism). Hell, like half of the subideologies for oligarchy you cite are stated to be ideologies (or at least are closely related to one). Retr0r0cket (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC for "right-wing to far-right" vs "far-right"

The party's ideology is changing consistently between the two. I believe this warrants an RfC so we can finally build up a consensus. Any objections? Retr0r0cket (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have. I still believe it given the fact there isn't a consensus. Some of the reason this hasn't happened in the talk page is because editors would change multiple pages and by that point it's easier to just go to their talk page. Retr0r0cket (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually Fidesz, Fidesz-KDNP, and KDNP all have this issue. There's no consensus on their ideology which should probably be hashed out. I'm just mentioning it here before doing anything to see if any other editors agree it could be useful. If we could clear it up there that would be nice, but I also don't see that happening. Retr0r0cket (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You're correct that there is not a consensus, but a consensus can also be achieved through a simple discussion with involved editors. RfC's are only used as a last case scenario. I'd suggest stating what is the issue, what are the facts, and how to solve the issue, and begin a discussion with editors. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Part of the issue is also that editors make changes and won’t respond to anything on their talk page or another article. Kind of hard to form a consensus when nobody is willing to talk.

If we can a handful of people willing to discuss the topic here though I would gladly avoid another RfC Retr0r0cket (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Most users involved in such changes do not have this page watchlisted, so a talk page ping would be appropriate. Feel free to ping them and start the discussion. I'll moderate the discussion. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)