Talk:György Konrád

"Possible BLP issue or vandalism; only citation was in Hungarian."
u r a joke sir. what if there s no source of that in English since u out there doesnt even care with facts about us. but beside of that it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE is Hungary, there r files published openly from the national archives, there were lawsuits as it was mentioned.

Konrád was never a dissident. he made a pact with the communist leaders, he gave up his own brother-in-law. He had privileges like real opposition figures could never dream of. I cited police reports about that - they were openly publicized in Hungarian press and u can ask them out from the national archives.

If u doubt the credibility of the Hungarian source try google translator at least :)

Btw Konrád filed a lawsuit for libel against the journalist (István Lovas) who cited the files found about Konrád in Magyar Nemzet.

I am citing from the verdict of the Capital Court of Budapest in the Konrád vs Lovas case:

„A lefolytatott bizonyítás és a feltárt bizonyítékok alapján megállapítható, hogy a magánvádló (Konrád György) 1974 októberében, letartóztatása után a hatóságnak bejelentette, hogy a keresett kézirat sógoránál, Sándor Ernő lakásán található. A hatóság tagjával ezt követően meg is jelent annak lakásán, ahol a magánvádló közölte Sándor Ernővel, hogy adja elő a tanulmányt, majd a kéziratot lefoglalták. (…) Konrád György bejelentése után az ő felhívására adta elő Sándor Ernő 1974. október 27-én az esszét a rendőröknek. Ebből pedig levonható az a következtetés, hogy az irat őrzőjének nevét Konrád György magánvádló közölte a hatósággal, így ez a cselekmény a mindennapi élet fogalmai szerint »besúgásnak« minősül. Ezt magánvádlónak a 168 Óra című folyóiratban tett kijelentései is alátámasztják, hiszen a cikkben ő maga mondta, hogy »morális hibát követtem el«.”

"based on the verification procedure and the evidences it can be stated that the accuser after his arrest in October 1974 announced that the wanted manuscripts can be found at his brother-in-law's apartment. He then showed up on his apartment together with the representatives of the authority and the accuser asked Ernő Sándor to give the writings to the police. It can be assumed that the name of the person hiding the wanted manuscripts was given up by Konrád. This behavior is called in the everyday life denounce. This is reinforced by accusers own words given in an interview in 168 óra (Hungarian newspaper), where he said: "i ve done a moral mistake"."

So according to a Hungarian court verdict: it is a proven FACT that Konrád was a beagle, a rat who gave up his own relative whom he asked to help. After that he could travel to the west and back like not even ordinary citizens could. real opposition figures were never given the chance to travel to the west and hold lectures, give speeches or talk on Radio Free Europe. And if u had come back to Hungary after all these u would ve been surely jailed. So here is a guy doing everything free and without real harm or prosecution under the communist regime for which everyone else would end up in jail and no one in their families were ever given a passport or chance to travel to the west. Konrád was such a big opposition figure he was asked by György Aczél himself about his terms to stay in the country. This letter was published in Hungarian press in 2003 and was used as an evidence in the above mentioned lawsuit. After the 3 years travel ban he wrote a letter to János Kádár asking for a passport which he was given.

Maybe Hungarian Courts should have publish their verdicts in english to be credible sources for wikipedia? joke.

U can ask anyone from Hungary and not being supporter of the 1% liberal party and will tell u the same. Konrád is view as an anti-Hungarian. he is a marginal figure saw with disgust by the majority. his false image in western countries are based on misunderstanding and lies.

Ah - Being a chief think-tank in the liberal party he was the leading propagator of the coalition with the ex-communist party in 1994 which led to the MSZP-SZDSZ led government of 1994-98. Many supporterts left the former anti-communist liberal party after that act. Imagine Vaclav Havel asking for a coalition with excommunists or Walesa governing together with them...

So pls restore my changes since they were factual and part of common knowledge and remove lies like Konrád was a dissident. He was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.12.97 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

current claims in the article
where are the references for the current claims in the article?

like being a dissident, jailed and publication ban? if he was under ban whats with his works? little bit of contradiction

1969 A látogató (regény) 1969 Az új lakótelepek szociológiai problémái (Szelényi Ivánnal közösen) 1977 A városalapító (regény)[10] 1978 Az értelmiség útja az osztályhatalomhoz (esszék, Szelényi Ivánnal közösen) 1980 Az autonómia kísértése (esszék) 1982 A cinkos (regény) 1986 Antipolitika (esszék) 1987 Kerti mulatság (regény)

from hungarian wikipedia

if he was under ban in the 70s and 80s then whats with these works?

there are no references at all for the current claims yet u remove my referenced additions with accurate infos.

"he was jailed for some time" - is that a referenced, academic claim? :) he wasnt jailed. he was arrested and kept from October 22 1974 till the 27th when he led the police to his brother-in-law's apartment and asked him to give back the manuscripts.he was freed that very day and the prosecution was terminated. imagine the communist regime terminating a prosecution against a real opposition figure after finding the subversive manuscript they were looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.12.97 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why??
someone is deleting facts from this article. facts based on court verdicts like Konrád was a snitch etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.202.65 (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Moreover these facts can be read in the Hungarian version of the article with references. Just because there are no references in English about these facts (since Hungarian Court verdicts are in Hungarian only) that doesnt mean they arent true.

Konrád was a snitcher who gave up his own brother-in-law who was holding his paper in secrecy. he has a Supreme court verdict saying he was one, yet someone is deleting information about this from the English version. They cant do the same with the Hungarian one,because they r well known facts with hundreds of references.

Konrád was a potemkin oppositionalist - a made up one. Real oppositionalists couldnt travel to the west, couldnt publish, couldnt give terms to György Aczél. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.202.65 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1. these are all true, u can find these informations in any hungarian newpaper 2. how do u expect english reference about reports of the communist regime's secret service? or court verdicts given in Hungary? u can travel to Hunagary and read it in Hungarian in the national archives 3. there were several references give pointing to hungarian newspapers. translate them 4. all these informations are in the Hungarian version of the article with references. 5. its a joke that for the english wikipedia u must give english references, else they dont exist for u?

pls dont remove facts and the truth. in the current form the article about Konrad is misleading and depicts him as a good, anti-communist oppositional which he wasnt at all. go and make your research and translations.

the lack of english references cant be the cause of omitting well-known facts about him which is proved by secret service report and court verdicts which are available only in Hungarian since the official language of Hungary is Hungarian and authorities and courts use Hungarian only of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.202.65 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Was he a "snitcher"?
According to the verdict of the Hungarian Supreme Court he had done what is stated in the article. Why is it continuously removed by someone, who has never contributed to the Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cifferlaci), only keeps deleting this specific piece of info? --Ltbuni (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

slanderous?
Why is it slanderous to write that he was a snitcher, when he admitted it, moreover there is a verdict confirming it? If You do not like the way Mr or Miss 178.164.202.65 formed his/her sentences, then rephrase them, but please do not delete - it is not fair. It seems to me he or she worked hard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gy%C3%B6rgy_Konr%C3%A1d&diff=601371048&oldid=582370368

--Ltbuni (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That was the Lovas István case. Yes, the Ernö Sándor incident did occur, and Konrád does seem to have potentially put Sándor in danger. The charge, however, that K did this in return for a passport was rejected and dismissed by the court. I agree that the incident is worthy of mention, but it deserves a complete treatment, including Konrád's later admission that this was a moral crime on his part. If you want to write it up, feel free to send it along. But 2 sentences will not do it. You have brought up a point worthy of discussion, but your assertion that "he or she worked hard" is just not the case. ˜˜˜˜


 * OK, here we are. I think we are facing two challenges: first: what should we add to the article, second: where should we add it. Concerning the first one:judging by the discussion above on this talk page, there are several issues the editors questioned or wanted to insert:


 * - he was not dismissed from the University thanks to the personal intervention of commmunist theoritician György Lukács and István Sőtér - it is on the web-page of Konrád - it is missing here


 * - there is a letter, published by the Magyar Nemzet in 2003, claiming that the Minister of Education or Culture or whatever, György Aczél himself asked Konrád not to leave the country


 * - Konrád later asked this omnipotent Minister for a passport after the Ernő Sándor incident and he received it without any difficulty, so despite the fact he was seen as a dissident in the Western countries, he was officially allowed to leave Hungary after a simple request


 * - He was a party politician (Hungarian Liberal Party - SZDSZ), not an independent intellectual


 * - Some of his texts suggests racism, kind of Jewish supremacy especially this one: A zsidók nem lesznek utcaseprők, mert a sok évezred alatt felhalmozódott intellektuális tőke tovább öröklődik az utódokra. Az érzékenységet, az alkatot és valószínűleg az intelligenciánk természetét is összeadjuk abban a génkoktélban, amik a gyermekeink." I am sure You can read this in Hungarian.


 * - It is a bit strange that Mr. Ernő Sándor was never allowed (according to the Magyar Nemzet) to leave the country, while Mr. Konrád, the author of subversive texts was - could You please share us Mr. Konrád's version? According to the verdict, he did not make any deal with the Hungarian Communist Party. How could Mr. Konrád leave?


 * Sources for these:


 * http://mno.hu/migr_1834/konrad-gyorgy-onsajnalata-a-radioban-423827


 * http://mno.hu/migr_1834/lovas-istvan-ragalmazta-konrad-gyorgyot-722995


 * http://www.dia.pool.pim.hu/html/muvek/KONRAD/konrad00001a/konrad00018/konrad00018.html


 * http://mno.hu/migr_1834/jogeros-dontes-a-konradlovas-perben-675782


 * http://epa.oszk.hu/00300/00381/00008/kolozsv.htm


 * Then where should we add these? I have no idea. In a separate section? Integrated in the bio itself?


 * I guess, that we must shed light on these topics, otherwise we have endless edit wars, as it was proven.
 * Other editors are welcome
 * --Ltbuni (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright
This is the first time I'm doing this copyright thing, but it's quite obvious that large parts of the biography are taken directly from the biography on the late author's own website http://www.konradgyorgy.hu/eletrajz.php?lang=eng. Following instructions from Spotting possible copyright violations, I also put the "Copypaste" template on the article page. Wakari07 (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC) The page itself says it's under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. But we still have the WP:Plagiarism issue, I guess. Wakari07 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Dealt with. Added relevant template for attribution, and VRT confirmation can be seen at the top of this talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)