Talk:Budapest Complex: Difference between revisions

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 23 December 2025 by reviewer Kovcszaln6 (talk · contribs). This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

@Kovcszaln6 Thank you for the revision! I must say that as a non-native speaker who made an AI-assisted translation (checking sentence by sentence if the meaning had remained the same and using three different AIs and carefully comparing the results, but still), the issue that I feared the most was the English level of the article. If everything is ok from that side, it’s really a great news for me. What I also find remarkable is this attention to the sources. On it.wiki (my home wiki) I’m currently fighting tooth and nail just for make the community accept the idea that primary, secondary and tertiary sources must be used in different ways and for different aims, it’s almost moving to see that there’s somewhere in the wikimedia environment where people still use sources carefully and with encyclopedic rigour, so thank you!
Getting to the point of the review:

1. YouTube video: that sentence is almost completely referenced by the two other sources. The tagesspiegel references in 2023, the neo-Nazi demonstration was formally banned by Hungarian authorities but took place anyway […] giving Nazi salutes […] the neo-Nazi demonstrators assaulted journalists present, two of whom were injured to the head. Later that evening, the neo-Nazi militants reportedly went also into the city center to attack left-wing counter-demonstrators. The Faz references in the green area of Városmajor. So, the only thing that is referenced by democ is wearing SS and Wehrmacht uniforms. The reason why I added that video is first of all that it’s the source of that part of the Tagesspiegel article (or rather, it’s directly incorporated in the article), so the Tagesspiegel’s journalists have apparently deemed it as a reliable source regarding the reconstruction of the events. In the video there is a more thorough account of what happened, with images and so on, so I thought that it was a good supplementary material for the article. I also added that detail about the uniforms because IMHO it is relevant in the following controversy between the alleged attackers and the Hungarian authorities about how the victims were chosen. If you think that is necessary though I can remove both the source and the detail about the uniforms.
2. Tageszeitung: I don’t really agree with that assessment, but most importantly, another more recent scholar analysis seems to show very different results: in the ranking at page 444 Die Tageszeitung ranks third, getting 7.3 points out of ten (with the first one being the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung with 7.4 out of ten). Generally speaking, it’d be extremely difficult to replace it. Die Tageszeitung is a left-leaning newspaper, and these are the newspapers which have paid more attention to all the different phases of these trials (the same applies for il manifesto in Italy). Of course I’ve paid attention to take out possible NNPOV remarks out of these sources and keeping to the facts, especially in the cases in which I have seen that there was some controversy that didn’t seem really relevant to me for this article (for example I’ve left out the assertion that Maja T. is “in confinment”, a lexical choice that was criticized by conservative newspapers like Die Welt).

—Friniate ✉ 19:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I’ll accept the draft. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kovcszaln6 Thank you very much! 🙂 —Friniate ✉ 21:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltbuni Do you have any source stating that the Day of Honor celebrations remember also the Hungarian civilians? I’m not stating that there were no civilians, but the sentence is not about what happened in 1945, but about the things that happened in 1945 that are celebrated by Neo Nazis today.
The source that is now present in the article says: Jedes Jahr gedenken tausende Teilnehmer der deutschen Wehrmacht, der Waffen-SS und ihrer ungarischen Kollaborateure (transl. every year thousands of participants remember the German Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS and their Hungarian collaborators), that was more or less what I had written. —Friniate ✉ 13:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that in the actual event civilians also participated.: “A magyar és német katonák, nyilas fegyveresek mellett batyus-babakocsis civilek is próbáltak kijutni.” Source: Federation of Jewish Communities in Hungary. https://mazsihisz.hu/hirek-a-zsido-vilagbol/hirek-lapszemle/kitores-65-eve-mindenfele-hullahegyek-tornyosultak–Ltbuni (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, reading Ilaria Salis article, was she reported/not reported?–Ltbuni (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the radical right wing extremism, but this source says that they DO remember the civilians: A Vitézi Rend megemlékezése az 1945 február 11.-i kitörés civil és katonai áldozatairól a I. ker Kapisztrán téren. Source: https://www.vitezirend.com/rovatok/hirek/emlekezz-a-kitores-hoseire/–Ltbuni (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The nazi civilians who were collaborating with the german nazis… Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Idk why, the link does not work, but if you copy the Hungarian text ( A Vitézi Rend megemlékezése az 1945 február 11.-i kitörés civil és katonai áldozatairól a I. ker Kapisztrán téren) into google, it is gonna be the first hit.—-Ltbuni (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you don’t put a space after the URL and before your signature, which means that each URL has — attached to the end of it. Polygnotus (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit, that the attack was aimed at radical right wing extremists. If you read the whole article, you will find that innocent people were beaten up too. Please, explain–Ltbuni (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to explain? Reliable sources say the alleged victims were neo-nazis. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Polish neo nazis? Seriously? You really think that in a city with 2 million habitants it is easy to identify who nazi or who is not? Look at the map of Budapest!!! The places where the events took place are some 10 km-s away from each other.–Ltbuni (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is difficult to believe that Polish neo-nazis exist, considering how much that country suffered in WW2, but they do.

I haven’t seen a reliable source claim that all/any alleged victims were Polish neo-nazis, IIRC, but it is possible of course; the event attracts neo-nazis internationally.

The people who attended the Day of Honor [sic] didn’t really hide their identity or nazi beliefs, so in that sense they are easy to identify. You can check on YouTube. Polygnotus (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the only website that I found that identified the three polish citizens said that they were three right-wing extremists too, but it was not a RS so it couldn’t be used here. I haven’t see any other source identifying them, so I think that it’s better to use vague wordings talking about this matter. —Friniate ✉ 22:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“[…]refers to several assaults against right-wing extremists[…]” I believe this section should be reworded, considering that some victims seem to not have been participants of the “Day of Honor” demonstration – according to Hungarian police, some victims of the attack were attacked due to the attackers believing they were “on their way” to the demonstration.

also “following the neo-Nazi demonstration” also seems incorrect considering according to the article, the attacks happened from 9th to 11th February, while the demonstration itself happens on the night between 11-12th

I suggest rewriting the introduction of the article to be something among the lines of:
“The term Budapest Complex […] refers to several assaults in February 2023 in Budapest carried out by alleged far-left militants from the antifa movement against individuals believed by the attackers of being right-wing extremists intending to take part in the neo-Nazi “Day of Honor” demonstration. ”

I think this wording would be more neutral, thought I ask for input from other people.
–wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 16:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wojtekpolska1013 You’re right about the two remarks (my bad, I should have checked everything better), but your suggested wording doesn’t fully convince me. I’d keep the in-text attribution of the identification of the perpetrators.

Something like: refers to several assaults that occurred in Budapest in February 2023, aimed at right-wing extremists in the days preceding the neo-Nazi “Day of Honor” demonstration. These attacks were attributed by Hungarian and German authorities to far-left militants from the antifa movement, among whom there are some individuals already involved in the Dresden left-wing extremists trial. Does it convince you? —Friniate ✉ 22:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]