Talk:Ferenc Gyurcsány

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

Non-encyclopedic "though-challenge"[edit]

Hi Wikipedians, I know it is a hard task to remain impartial in actual political questions, but I strongly feel that phrases just like ""...a very tough challenge, the MSZP standing around 25% and the opposition's main party: the Fidesz standing about 50%."" are not impartial and absolutely superfluous in a BIOGRAPHY (i.e. this is not an article on political prospects of big parties in Hungary). I suggest immediate cancelling the above mentioned phrase. Millisits 14:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry, I just wanted to explain why the PM-change has happened, but you are right, this is not the place for that information. I'll remove it. Anyway, figures have changed too, MSZP coming up and Fidesz down, but all poll figures become obsolete in a short period. --Sicboy 00:47, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Hi all, "In the summer of that same year it seemed that there were larger problems in his relationship with Medgyessy, rumours said because the PM was getting afraid of Gyurcsány as a competitor for the seat, so he resigned as minister. But in 1 week everything changed: Medgyessy resigned, and Gyurcsány became the incoming Prime Minister of Hungary." This 2 sentences doesn't make much sense from a logical point of view. Could the author please rephrase to less ambiguousity. I just don't want to edit the article. My suggestion would a short elaboration of the MSZP regional vote in Győr then the general assembly vote in Budapest. And "1" should be written "one". Also, the origin of Mr. Gyurcsány's wealth is not only questioned by the political right, but his entire opposition left and right (think Munkáspárt/MIÉP). Other than that, congratulations on the good article. - milfor

I changed the sentence, let's see if you like it. --Sicboy 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics scandal[edit]

Hello Sicboy, there is one other point in which I think we should make a change. You wrote in the article, that as long he was a minister for sports, a huge doping scandal broke out, which is true, still the context makes it look like as if it would have been his wrongdoing, and that is not encyclopedical. You must also know, that the official standpoint of the ministry was that our athletes had not doped, so either you add this too, or we shall remove the sentence at all. That does not mean, that I would like Gyurcsány, Medgyessy or Orbán, but since it's the Wikipedia, we should stay NPOV.

That was not my addition ((i think)), so it can be removed, but let's see what others think about it. --Sicboy 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Error[edit]

Oh, and a factual error: the president of DEMISZ was not Gyurcsány, but Nagy Imre. Shinichi1977 13:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he surely was not the president of DEMISZ, but who is that Nagy Imre? Ex-PM Nagy Imre was executed in 1958. Anyway, you can read Gyurcsány's curriculum vitae at [1] It doesn't tell much about his past really. I'd be glad if someone would find documents on what he was doing as a KISZ-KB member and president during his studies at Univerity of Pécs. I mean how many students were forced to leave the university with the "help" of Mr. Gyurcsány. 193.6.243.100 07:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nagy Imre was the head of the DEMISZ, please see [2] and search for "DEMISZ". Naturally, not *that* Nagy Imre, since that Nagy Imre was long dead by then. Replying to your other comment, he "helped" none out, since KISZ was *not* a force-organisation by the time he was vice president of it in [Pécs]]. Msoos 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then ask any of the professors who were teaching there by the time Gyurcsány did his business at the university!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.84 (talk • contribs)
Dear 84.2.197.84, you seem to be in error. Please read up on this in history books. In the times we are speaking about, there was no real pressure exerted by KISZ in any way. There were of course other pressure factors, but KISZ was certanly not one of them. Msoos 07:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Grant[edit]

Funny guy :-) bogdan 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What an idiot!! LoL


Gyurcsány as "entrepreneur"[edit]

Msoos, strangely enough you still have not provided any corroborating evidence that would support your ridiculous claim that Gyurcsány is an entrepreneur HVG and that his wealth has nothing to do with the marrying into the Apró Clan Family- Index.hu. One would wonder that what could be the reason for it? Perhaps the fact, that it is not true? I can easily prove my claims (that you keep deleting)! Gyurcsány lost his slander claim case against the Magyar Nemzet newspaper regarding the Fittelina case Népszabadság and he has withdrawn his claim against the same newspaper regarding the Nomentana case FigyelőNet

Amexos 11 August 2006

Amexos, in your opinion did Gyurcsány own a business, or more precisely, a number of businesses? -- nyenyec ☎ 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nyenyec, sure he owned businesses, but corruption played a greater role than talent in Gyurcsány's success. Gyurcsány would never have got where he is today without making use of the contacts and the support base of the Apró Clan. You could claim that it is normal business practice in the World to use contacts to further your business, however I think we all know, that in Gyurcsány's case we can not call his acquisition techniques entrepreneurial in the generally accepted sense, especially not in Hungary. If you disagree, perhaps you could provide a timeline for us, detailing his accumulation of wealth before and after his marriage into the Apró Clan. (I see that you are a Sysop in Wikipedia, I hope that this is not Msoos' answer to have me banned from here for daring to disagree with his biased posting.) Amexos 12 August 2006
Relax, no one wants to ban you.
What you're arguing is not that he wasn't an entrepreneur, but that he allegedly used illegal means to gain a business advantage. ::This is a common and well known allegation and should be presented in the article.
There is already a sentence about it in the -- rather unfortunately named -- "Opposition arguments" section.
It should be presented in one paragraph or section, preferably heavy on facts and references with as little editorializing as possible. See Dick Cheney#Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President for an example on how such allegations can be presented.
But please be precise in your wording.
Suggested reading: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE.
-- nyenyec ☎ 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nyenyec, It is good to hear that your are not here to ban me, I thought that perhaps Msoos brought you here for this purpose, since he [my talk] accused me of "vandalism", claiming that I would not be the first one to suffer a fate like that. As you can see on the top of the section, I have already proven my side on Gyurcsány's lack of "entrepreneurship", there are four different sources that question his business ethics. I believe now it is up to Msoos to either change the original posting to reflect the truth or remove the falsifying term.

Regards, Amexos Amexos 16:25, 12 August 2006


The problem is that if he owned and created companies, esp. risking his own money, then he is an entrepreneur. It seems silly to argue against that.
About the allegations about his business practices I suggest you come up with a precisely worded and properly referenced paragraph that we can discuss on the talk page. This way you can save everyone the frustration of a revert war.
Cheers, nyenyec ☎ 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nyenyec, I think that we all know how he made his fortune, it is pretty much common knowledge in Hungary. Buying up "privatized" government properties for next to nothing (using his commie network contacts in the Apró Family) and then leasing back the property to the government for significant amounts, making huge profits does not qualifies as entrepreneurship(not in the normal sense anyway). I am not going to spend more time arguing with Msoos on Gyurcsány(i), I have better things to do than wasting time. I am somewhat disappointed because I thought that the content of the Wikipedia is verified for authenticity. Perhaps later I will take this issue up with the admin person responsible for verifying the core knowledge.

Have a good day. Amexos 13 August 2006

Opposition Arguments[edit]

I have a question concerning the point "Opposition Arguments". The sources are missing at some points. Especially on the issue of administrative reform, there is no source. Furthermore, what were the reasons for his predecessors resignation? What was the conflict between MSZP and SZDSZ about? Can anyone help out? --Philiboy 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His predecessor, [Péter Medgyessy](aka "D-209" - he was unmasked as a communist agent) on August 19, 2004, due to impaired confidence in him by the coalition partner Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ), declared his resignation, much to the dismay of the Socialist Party).Hungary's Prime Minister Exposed as Former Communist Spy Amexos 2:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That is not correct. The D-209 scandal happened in 2002 and "the coup" removing him from power in 2004. He got replaced by Gyurcsany because of dwindling approval numbers and coalition disagreements. His predecessor didn't resign, the parliament can, with a simple majority, exchange prime ministers at any time. A beautiful mind 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A beautiful mind is correct. He did not have to resign because of the D-209 scandal. He had to resign much later for other reasons.Msoos 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. See correction with reference. Amexos 22:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

New article?[edit]

How about making a new article about the events related to the audio recording? --HappyCamper 09:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who leaked[edit]

Who taped and leaked the "confession"?

The crystal clear quality of the voice material suggests it was taken direct from the amplifier used for driving the indoor loudspeakers. Someone simply attached an extra cable for tape recorder, so it must have been an insider job. The other alernative is ultra-topnotch spy equipment, as you don't get this recording quality from a usual bug or a laser bouncer that taps the windowglass to record voice through resonances.
Allegedly, someone tried to sell the scandal records for either 100k or 600k euros several weeks before it was posted to major hungarian media outlets for free. 81.0.68.145 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Screwed up" versus "fucked up"[edit]

With respect to this part of the latest controversial quote:

There is not much choice. There is not, because we screwed up. Not a little, a lot.

I took this conversation out of the HTML comments in the wikitext:

NOTE: The BBC, which is quoted here, uses the word "screwed up", not "fucked up", so we shouldn't alter it. (added by Adam78)
NOTE: I have added a quote to the original Hungarian transcript. The BBC translation is wrong, the Hungarian word he used does not translate as "screw up", it is much more rude than that. (added by 71.70.239.130)

We are citing this as what the BBC said. We therefore must use the BBC's translation, so "screwed up" goes, whether or not this is the most idiomatic version of the Hungarian original.

To 71.70.239.130: you're free to dispute this, but in order to change it in the article, you're going to have to find another notable English translation of Gyurcsány's words which uses "fucked up". -Saforrest 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Elkúrtuk" (which Gyurcsány actually said in Hungarian) is not the most vulgar term, similar to "f**ked up" in English. The latter would have been expressed in Hungarian as "elbasztuk" – this is what would be properly translated as "f**ked up". See also the Hungarian translation of "f**k" in Wiktionary. Adam78 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we are all fucked up arguing over this. Anyway, I found another translation: [3]. "Elkúrtuk" is much closer to fucked up than to screwed up. BBC simply toned it down, because they dont use the f-word. Al345 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FG's problem - he admitted what all politicians do.

How do you tell if a politician is lying? They open their mouths.

And then there is the joke about the politician linked up to a lie detector machine which "reacted" when he told his name (ie the truth)

(post to political jokes when desired: they just happen to be appropriate here.

It's not entirely accurate to say the demonstrations are caused by the publishing the tapes. The real reason is the absymal state of the economy caused by the socialism (one of the worst in Europe and with an inflation other 10%). The open cynism that the government demonstrates only served as a catalyst. Also the sentance about how the demonstators were joined by soccer fans a stormed the building together is false as it was only the soccer fans who did the rioting.

Today BBC World translated "elkúrtuk" as "fucked up" (which is more accurate, by the way, see above) so I'm going to change it back. --Zoz (t) 19:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only found [4] reference for the opposite. Would you give your reference, please? Adam78 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Al345 found another translation. You are right in that if we cite the BBC, then we shouldn't alter it. However, since "fucked up" is definitely a better translation than "screwed up", we don't necessarily have to stick with the BBC translation you found; we can use for example this translation or we can even translate it ourselves (note that many times the source is not available in English and WP editors translate it for the English Wikipedia). I know that using a citable English translation is almost always preferred over translating it ourselves, but in this special case we have an abundance of Hungarian references as well (e.g. from the horse's mouth or from a third party) and surely you can agree that "screwed up" is not an accurate translation of "elkúrtuk"? What I'm saying is this: if we didn't have any citable English translation we would translate it ourselves accurately as "fucked up" citing the Hungarian references. Now we happen to have a citable BBC translation but it is not accurate, and therefore following policy and preferring it over "fucked up" makes WP less accurate. To me this looks like a case when sticking rigorously with policy (prefer citable translations) is counterproductive. --Zoz (t) 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC). PS: In case you're wondering, I'm still certain that BBC World translated it as "fucked up" this afternoon, but I can't 'prove it'.[reply]

I'm afraid that stating

since "fucked up" is definitely a better translation than "screwed up"

is nothing but a POV. However: if you want, you can add a footnote or a remark of any kind saying that "Certain resources translated this word as 'fucked up'" (with exact links to the resources) but you must not alter the translation of BBC. You may be entirely certain you're right but it's actually not your business but that of BBC.

The only thing you can do is adding a remark about the controversy over the translation (rather than your own opinion). Don't forget: Wikipedia is not a primary source and no original research is advisable. Adam78 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that changing that word would make the translation less accurate, then so be it, I won't argue with you any further, it's not that important. Also, if you think that it would make it more accurate but English readers wouldn't be able to fact-check the translation so overall the change would not worth it, then OK, that's fine by me.
However, if you think that "screwed up" should be used only because changing it is POV and OR, then I think that's a harsh and serious misunderstanding.
A POV would be for example "Obviously Mr Gyurcsány has to resign / doesn't have to resign". In contrast, I changed only one word and it didn't introduce any bias. Do you think it was against "representing views fairly"? Yes, I think "fucked up" is a better translation than "screwed up". But that isn't called a point of view, it's called "editorial preference". As I said above, it happens every day when WP editors translate a foreign language source to English and cite the original source. Or think about British English vs American English. I think those who prefer American English have an editorial preference, not a POV.
An original research would be "Obviously MSZP / FIDESZ is responsible for leaking the tape because..." (without giving references). I did find references (see above), so it is verifiable that he said "elkúrtuk". Where is the original research, then? Can you point me to a policy on "no original translations"? --Zoz (t) 12:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Stating that this translation is better than another certainly needs an objective ground, be it a dictionary or a study or whatever. If you don't claim your ground for your preferred translation, it is original research or a POV, I believe. This is why I wrote above the other option you have: citing a source which also uses the translation "fucked up". Cite. Cite. Cite. Isn't it really so difficult to understand? – There is no problem with editorial preferences as long as there is consensus among editors about using this specific preference. In this case, unfortunately, there is no such consensus, I'm afraid.

"Fucked up" is at the most vulgar end of a scale in English, just like "elbasztuk" is at the most vulgar end of the corresponding scale in Hungarian. Just think of the fact that among homonymous words, it's only "fuck" which is frequently used with asterisks or hyphens. "Screwed" is not used like that. The word "fuck" has a special status in English, as you know very well.

And its Hungarian equivalent is not "elkúrtuk" but "elbasztuk". The only Hungarian word which is regularly used with asterisks is "baszik" and its derivatives. "Elkúrtuk" is not. If Gyurcsány had wanted to use a word which is at the vulgar end of this scale, he would have "elbasztuk". However, he did not say that. This means that we must not resort to a word in the English translation which is at the end of the corresponding scale in English. "Elkúrtuk" is obscene but it doesn't have that special status in Hungarian as "elbasztuk" has. "Screwed up" is obscene but it doesn't have that special status in English as "fucked up" has. This is why I think they can't be equivalents. Adam78 17:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can see why you personally prefer "screwed up". Fair enough, let it stay in the article.
I do not intend to post anymore to this discussion unless you continue to claim that I have a [non-neutral] PEE-oh-WEE (You confuse "point of view" ("nézőpont") with "opinion"/"preference" ("nézet"). Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and then describe from which point of view - biased by which idealogy - I am editing if I have a non-neutral POV as you suggest. Do I edit from a pro-socialist or a pro-conservative point of view, for instance?) or you continue to misinterpret WP:NOR (Please do read Wikipedia:No original research. Please point me to the section which makes it clear that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to translate sources themselves. If you can't find such a sentence then please refrain from citing Wikipedia:No original research where it doesn't apply.)
I can see you're one of the most experienced Hungarian editors, which is great, but fear not, you're not omniscient. You might actually benefit from rereading the policies you refer to. Thank you and have a nice day. --Zoz (t) 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of short comments.

  1. The meaning of "POV" seems to have changed in Wikipedia over time: it doesn't literally mean "point of view" but a certain bias. This is how most Wikipedians seem to apply this term, despite its original meaning.
  2. You asked what bias I suspect. I don't want to imply any kind of bias on your part whatsoever, but attributing a more vulgar statement to Gyurcsány than what he actually made in Hungarian would be somewhat unfair, a pro-conservative POV.
  3. Of course, Wikipedians are more than welcome to translate texts whenever no authentic translation is publicly available. However, we already have a translation that we can use and BBC is commonly believed to be authentic enough.
  4. In case you feel that the translation of BBC also has a bias (softening Gyurcsány's words), you are free to link to another translation. Modifying the version BBC used is not acceptable, in my opinion, as long as we resort to their translation.
  5. I'm sorry if I applied the "No original research" inadvertently; I hoped you'll accept the underlying principle which applies here. We only report on fragments of the world, rather than creating them. I basically meant arbitrariness and this policy seemed to be the closest to it.
  6. Have a nice day. :-)

Adam78 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5] [6] Frigo 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

much of this article reads like an attack piece. Of course the recording scandal should be a central theme, but especially the section "opposition arguments" is essentially a list of criticism of Gyurchany by the opposition without any counterbalancing comments by his supporters. Also, the account of the recent riots is unbalanced, with such POV statements as "did anything to cut their way" and "presumably the football fans." Also the particular quote from the leaked recording is not representative of the whole, and seems to have been chosen to make Gyurchany look as bad as possible. I am not proposing that anything be removed from this article, but until it is rounded out in a more balanced way an NPOV tag is necessary. Dsol 18:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article needs indeed to be rewritten in the spirit of NPOV however it's currently very prosocialist presenting the nation as a bunch of savage Huns by freely mixing reports of vandalism with the protests.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.31.7 (talk • contribs) .
So why don't you fix it? Any improvement is welcome. --Zoz (t) 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unfortunate...[edit]

I find it unfortunate that:

  1. With the exception of the 'we fucked it up' part, I wrote the artilce 99.9%
  2. That nobody gave a damn about the article up until then, and even then they only edited that subsection
  3. Right-wing people keep on saying that the article is pro-socialist but don't add to the article, instead, delete, or alter one word here, one word there, and argue over it.
  4. That left-wing people don't add to the article.
  5. That everybody readily critisises politicians verbally, but don't actually put their arguments in a referencable manner that would suit Wikipedia (since just saying 'every politician is a worm, so is Gyurcsány' is not encyclopedic as we all know)
  6. That a nation of 10 million has only one person that can find the time to keep in shape the article of its Prime Minister on Wikipedia.

So for everyone reading this, I ask this: Please add to the article. Add where he was born, what high-school he attended, what languages he speaks at what level, which conference he attended, which big politician did he have conversation with (Bush, etc.) and when, what are his current policies and what is the rationale behind these policies, and so on...

Thanks in advance, Msoos 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 1, 2006?[edit]

In the box below the Prime Minister's photograph, his dates in office are listed as September 29, 2004 - October 1, 2006. I see no mention either in this article or in the article pertaining to the protests that says that he will be stepping down as of October 1, so where is this coming from? I don't know if it's true or not, but I do think that this needs to be verified. If true, particular mention of this fact should be made elsewhere in the article. --IntrigueBlue 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple vandalism. Thank you for warning. Adam78 09:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian name[edit]

according to the Hungarian wikipedia, his name is last name first[7]. Should the name of the article be changed accordingly?--Skyfiler 15:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this is the _English_ Wikipedia, I think it should not. English speakers take the name order granted thus the "Ferenc Gyurcsány" name order makes it clear that Gyurcsány is his family name and Ferenc (a Hungarian version of Frank) is his given one. The Hungarian name order form is proprely applied and explained in the introduction text so this shall be enough. Reverting the name order to as of the Hungarian method could lead into confusion. (a wikiuser from .hu)

Do those strange characters mean anything?[edit]

The article's heading is plagued with funny characters, such as (\\\'\\\'\\\'Ferenc Gyurcsány (help·info)\\\'\\\'\\\'). Do they have any meaning? If no answers appear in a few days, I'll delete them. Any objections? --AVM 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I just reverted the page. Someone decided to vandalise again. I also asked that the page be protected for the time being Dominic 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering[edit]

He's the 6th post-Communist Hungarian PM, but hardly the 6th overall Prime Minister of Hungary, as the template would seem to indicate. Biruitorul 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Error II[edit]

On the confidential vote, no socialist or liberal MP voted against him. Two socialist MPs resigned from their membership earlier (one of them became the Hungarian Ambassador to Canada, the other was voted mayor of the 7th district of Budapest), the third one had a car accident months ago and he is still in coma. (But the only independent MP voted for Gyurcsány). Cassandro, ..., 22:08, 28 October 2006 (CEST)

Sniff!![edit]

I just received Hokizzczukka's letter, that the fletoka gyurcsanyi is resigned. He is totally K.O. on the wits.--Kutya gumi 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Question[edit]

Sorry for disturbing with another thema. I would have a question about HU politics, but can't understand the language. In the I-Net dictionaries i have'nt seen the translation of the word "összetételében". Could anyone explain, what is that to mean in hungarian? And further: if the vokscentrum divides Antall-period into three and Medgyessy into two "összetételében"'s, then are those to be handeled as different governments with one and the same Prime Minister or are these just the usual government reshuffles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.135.40 (talk • contribs)

"Összetételében" means approximately "regarding its decomposition"; if the word is used in reference to a government, then it's to say something like "and here's the list of people making up this government". There is no precise definition as to what makes a government "new", but as the political system in Hungary allows the PM to dismiss ministers and appoint new ones as many times as it pleases him/her, various cabinets under the same PM are generally not considered different governments. (Thus the Antall and Boross cabinets are usually referred to as two, except if someone says "Antall-Boross-kormány" to emphasise they are talking about both; whereas "Gyurcsány-kormány" generally refers to both the one before and the one after the latest general elections, unless someone says "első/második Gyurcsány-kormány" to emphasise they are talking about the first/second of these two periods only.) KissL 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i will take them as one then. 213.35.135.40 19:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-elected?[edit]

I am new to wikipedia, so please take this comment with that in mind: I think that the following part is not true: "..making him the first Prime Minister to be re-elected since 1990.." since as he was elected only once. Could please somebody who has some skills with editing wikipedia pages maybe correct that ?

I've rephrased it a bit. KissL 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right. He is the first who keep his office. It corrected. --Beyond silence 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with the references? Both the TV interview and the newspaper are good sources for data about an active politician. Zello 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looking for it, but I didn't find any authentic source about it. It can be easily not right. --Beyond silence 00:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist?[edit]

  • Your source references "In an interview aired on TV2 during the 2006 parliamentary election campaign, Gyurcsány said that as a teenager, he "took part in confirmation for about two years" and even considered becoming a priest.[15]" How is it reference to "Gyurcsány has been tight-lipped on his religious affiliation, leading many to assume that he is an atheist."?--Beyond silence 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase was inaccurate (and was obviously not covered by the reference). I rephrased it to what I suppose was the idea of the original author. Tell me if you still have a problem with it. KissL 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no connection the refernce with the statement, it must be deleted. It this form is good, like the "On February 2, 2005, at the birthday party of the Hungarian Socialist Party, for the sake of a joke, he referred to the players of the Saudi national football team as terrorists. Later he apologized, but the kingdom ordered its ambassador home from Hungary for a time.[12][13]". --Beyond silence 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to him being tight-lipped, I think it is a trivial fact, but feel free to refute it by bringing any reference which would talk about his religious affiliation before, say, 2005. And as to this making a lot of people think he is an atheist, just ask ten people on the street. This removal of common sense information (which, incidentally, happens to put the following two sentences out of context) is useless wikilawyering. Finally, removing the only sentence you raised objections about and putting a disputed tag over a much larger section at the same time is simply ridiculous. KissL 08:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ask ten people! 1.: I don't think so you right. 2. Subjective opinions don't matter in Wikipedia. --Beyond silence 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said they do. The statement is that it was widely believed that he was an atheist. Bring an argument to the contrary, or stop removing common sense information. KissL 09:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An empty ad hominem is hardly worth more than no argument at all; not to mention it's not me who wants to change the status quo, so the burden of proof is not on me. You still haven't even attempted to justify your removal. KissL 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Than read it again: "* There is no connection the refernce with the statement, it must be deleted. --Beyond silence 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Your reference' is said that: "Gyurcsány said that as a teenager, he "took part in confirmation for about two years" and even considered becoming a priest.[15] Since confirmation can only be taken once, some regarded this claim as a giveaway that he was not telling the truth, while others such as Catholic bishop Endre Gyulai supposed he meant he took part in preparations for a confirmation.[16]"

First: that he said as teenager don't say anything what is "religious affiliation" at now. Second: his confirmation where talking about his an atheist ("is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]")


Your justifiy "as can be expected from a former KISZ leader" is an generality and assumption without real and objective reference.

After that your edition is a personal attack, a vandalism and there is no need reason when is undid more times. --Beyond silence 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure I get your English at times, but I repeat:

  • It is you who wants to remove something that had been there, so you have to justify your removal.
  • The argument "it is unreferenced" is invalid: sentences containing common sense information, or connecting referenced statements to each other are generally unreferenced (in this case, both applies: without the statement you object to, the casual reader will never know the reasons behind the various reactions to his claim about confirmation, nor why it is important at all).
  • Supposing that "a former KISZ leader has to be an atheist" is obviously an overgeneralisation, nonetheless this reasoning is exactly why the vast majority of Hungarians thought, and millions still think, that Gyurcsány is an atheist. The article is not saying this reasoning is right but simply points out it was used, providing context for the cited part of the Gyurcsány interview in Mokka.

Finally, read and understand WP:NPA. My patience is at an end. KissL 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kissl here, if you want to change something eg remove something that was there, you have to justify it first. Also the personal attacks and calling obviously good faith edits vandalism will not help your case. FYI the K in KISZ stands for "communist" (a probable reason for the atheist reference). Hobartimus 08:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled?[edit]

I can't find many sources that would talk about him being allegedly expelled from the Apáczai, but this one does not suggest so. He seems to have had a conflict with the headmaster about having to learn a second foreign language, but ultimately chose to leave by himself, without pressure. I have actually never read anyone (other than Gyurcsány himself) claim he was expelled. KissL 09:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under his office doping[edit]

"From May 2003 until September 2004 he was a minister responsible for sports, youth and children. Under his office, Hungary has suffered a high-profile athletic doping scandal during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens."

There is no justified connection between him and doping. I never heard about this speculation imputation, so I don't think you have any kind of reference - or you have? If no don't undo this! --Beyond silence 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was responsible for sports while this happened is enough connection to mention it. That there was no direct connection can be emphasised, though it follows logically from the fact that there are no further details to add. KissL 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beyond silence: there is no justified connection between him and the nasty athlets. I removed it. Gubbubu 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Specific description of the requested edit:

Delete this statements:

  • Under his office, Hungary suffered a high-profile athletic doping scandal during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. (no reference to justify the connection with him)
  • After his return to politics, Gyurcsány was at first tight-lipped on his religious affiliation, leading many to assume that he is an atheist (as can be expected from a former KISZ leader).

(Referenced content don't justify about this this statement. The "as can be expected from a former KISZ leader" is an subjective opinion. Thanks --Beyond silence 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see few attempts at consensus building on this page. Please try to resolve disputes then request unprotection. GDonato (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It impossible with this people. Please take an {{POV}} tag on this page! --Beyond silence 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Gyurcsány has anything to do with the doping scandal. He has got enough scandals without this speculation and he was hardly responsible for that what'd happened during the games - or if he was, it should be proved (but to the the other disputed things I cannot put a word). Gubbubu 09:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pretty easy to resolve -- the doping scandal is obviously off-topic here, and should be deleted. The atheism sentence just needs to be rephrased. How about "After his return to politics, Gyurcsány was at first tight-lipped about his religious affiliation. This lead many to assume, on the basis of his past as a KISZ leader, that he is an atheist." Of course, it would be good to cite a reference for this. --Zsebenci Klopédia 10:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed link[edit]

Someone with an edit right please search for the link to University of Budapest and change it to Eötvös Loránd University. Thanks, Kuteni 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing "fraudsters" category[edit]

This article is currently in the category fraudsters, but does not contain referenced information to support this claim, as required by Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization of people, and especially the non-negotiable Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons policy. I'm going to remove the category for the time being, although I will happily replace it if a source can be provided showing that this person has committed fraud. Natalie 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>This article is currently in the category fraudsters, but does not contain referenced information to support this claim
He himself said in the on-tape "Öszöd speech" that his government falsified and withheld crucial national economic statistic information from public disclosure weeks before the 2006 parlamentary elections, in order to prevent voters from realizing the dire state of Hungary's economics. This revelation was the spark that ignited the autumn 2006 street protests in Budapest, which the riot police dispersed most brutally. (So brutally the political opposition has actually promised to dissolve hungarian police forces when it gains power and replace them with csendőrség, i.e. gendarme troops according to the pre-1945 sctructure).
Gyurcsany has also admitted to falsifying a speech of right-wing politician János Áder to suggest the christian-conservative FIDESZ party aims to hang opposers if it keeps power. This "köteles beszéd" speech fraud has been crucial in ousting the FIDESZ government in April 2002.
On the economic front, the hungarian office of the public accuser (~ attorney general bureau) has declared in 2007 they gathered enough proof against Gyurcsany's companies to sue for serios tax evasion offences, but the 5 year statue of limitations has already expired by the time they got to file with the court.
To sum it up, Ferenc Gyurcsanyi is a fraudster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.243.75 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the private life section.[edit]

Added info on how communists used dynasty-building as a way to save stolen wealth and influence throughout the democratic transition and gain back rule a dozen years later. Gyurcsany's second and current marriage is such a prime example of this "social networking" tactic it's already written about in books discussing the modern age communist movements.

The bulgarian and russian ties of Gyurcsany and his works all point to the Kremlin's desire to reclaim Hungary into the eastern bloc, as re-emerging Russia constructs the belt of "satellite states" once again. Communists throughout eastern and central Europe are eager to assist and the same fate may await Slovakia. The rumanians and the polish are luckily to much russophobic to be tricked by the kremlin's servants. 91.82.243.75 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the sentence "Klára Dobrev from a family of Communist politicians" a bit, since it was NPOV - possibly libelous - and as far as I can see, she had one grandfather who was a party member. Emika22 (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Social Democratic" ?[edit]

Sorry, but I suggest the string 'the MSZP; in fact not Socialist but Social Democratic' to be deleted. There is no reference why the editor tried to dispute or overrule the party's own self-designation.

As a matter of fact MSZP does not look like a democratic party when

- winning the elections ('06) with withheld information about the actual budget deficit and denial of future plans on social policy (for references see the main article)

- using the police to attack also the peaceful demonstrators and then praising the police that hit everybody on the streets (the young, the old, even some tourists) (deleted post of the Gyurcsány-blog, quoted on many websites, http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyurcs%C3%A1ny_Ferenc#Szem.C3.A9lye_k.C3.B6r.C3.BCli_konfliktusok)

- staying stubbornly in office after the series of proof that the society is against their policy (http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-os_magyarorsz%C3%A1gi_%C3%B6nkorm%C3%A1nyzati_v%C3%A1laszt%C3%A1sok#Eredm.C3.A9nyek, http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-as_magyarorsz%C3%A1gi_n%C3%A9pszavaz%C3%A1s#Eredm.C3.A9nyek, http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009-es_eur%C3%B3pai_parlamenti_v%C3%A1laszt%C3%A1s_Magyarorsz%C3%A1gon#Eredm.C3.A9nyek)

- not inviting (in fact banning) an opposition-oriented TV-channel to their press conference (http://www.hirtv.net/filmek/civil0402.wmv)

- ...

Edits by Iohannesathanatos[edit]

There are three unjustified statements here.

1) "his legitimacy is highly controversial" Not true. As I corrected, his legitimacy is permanently questioned by his opposition. Distinction is important and very clear. 2) "expressed denial of his plans on social policy" Not referenced. The video (in Hungarian) only proves that Gyurcsány denied planning certain measures in the 2006 campain. This cannot be a source to prove that actually he had that plan but denied having it. 3) "the only Prime Minister of Hungarian history..." There is no source. The only reference here is Wikipedia itself which is not a source ever.

--peyerk (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Even though he's been trying to relativise this fact ever since"?[edit]

What does the above (last sentence in the article's second para) actually mean? The citation goes directly to a video, which doesn't help. I know the dictionary definition (to make relative) but it's not exactly in common usage; could someone please reword this to be clearer (and slightly less POV)? 86.143.51.126 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.politics.hu/20140114/opposition-leaders-agree-on-joint-list-for-general-election/ http://www.politics.hu/20140114/quotable-antal-rogan-on-the-opposition-coalition/ http://www.politics.hu/20130910/opposition-dk-socialist-election-talks-election-break-down/ http://www.politics.hu/20120917/former-pm-urges-opposition-to-step-up-protest-against-voter-registration/ http://www.politics.hu/20120913/mszp-must-nominate-pm-name-allies-by-late-2013-says-socialist-board-chairman/ http://www.politics.hu/20120914/jobbik-dubs-gyurcsany-hunger-strike-phoney-and-hypocritical-trumps-it-with-hot-meal-handouts/ http://www.politics.hu/20120910/former-pm-gyurcsany-on-week-long-hunger-strike-over-fidesz-voter-registration-plan/ http://www.politics.hu/20120911/gyurcsany-hunger-strike-party-ordered-to-pay-huf-132000-for-occupying-area-outside-parliament/ http://www.politics.hu/20101115/senior-socialist-sends-guarded-signals-about-expm-gyurcsany/ http://www.politics.hu/20110112/socialists-reportedly-to-assess-former-pms-party-wing-in-february/ http://www.politics.hu/20110218/top-socialist-says-former-pm-gyurcsany-should-leave-party-rather-than-ruining-mszp/ http://www.politics.hu/20110519/socialist-platforms-discuss-future-strategy/ http://www.politics.hu/20111022/gyurcsany-announces-departure-from-socialists-formation-of-new-western-civic-center-left-party/ http://www.politics.hu/20101007/gyurcsany-to-form-socialist-faction/ http://www.politics.hu/20101022/gyurcsanys-new-faction-forms-today/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ferenc Gyurcsány/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Gyurcsány is NOT an entrepreneur as stated by the author. Gyurcsány would never have got where he is today without making use of the contacts and the support base of the [Apró] Clan that he married into.HVG- Index.hu.

Népszabadság

=187&cid=134076 FigyelőNet

Last edited at 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ferenc Gyurcsány. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferenc Gyurcsány. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ferenc Gyurcsány. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferenc Gyurcsány. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ferenc Gyurcsány. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferenc_Gyurcsány&oldid=1202526837"