Talk:Mátyás Rákosi

Recent edits reverted by WikiPendant
Dear WikiPendant, you have reverted my edits discussing Rákosi's last years due to being "Perhaps accurate, but this extensive addition contains unencyclopedic language, POV, unsourced material, and original research."

My edits are neither POV nor original research. They are providing a concise summary of some of the conclusions from a book: Ungváry Krisztián, Meruk József, Rákosi Mátyás eltitkolt szolgálatai - Egy sztálinista diktátor börtönben, jólétben és száműzetésben (https://www.libri.hu/konyv/meruk_jozsef.rakosi-matyas-eltitkolt-szolgalatai.html). This book is discussing the last two decades of Rákosi's life, mainly based on his correspondence, a collection of hundreds of personal and official letters. The author is a high profile scholar specialised on the 20th century political and military history, with emphasis on the 2nd WW and the following stalinist regime: Krisztián Ungváry

Scanned copies of the letters themselves are available on the internet (https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/HU_BFL_XIV_284_RakosiSzamuzetesben/?pg=0&layout=s). The following link points to Rákosi's handwritten letter to the leaders of the Chinese communist party in English: https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/HU_BFL_XIV_284_RakosiSzamuzetesben/?pg=679&layout=s

I agree that my edits need referencing some sources. This book might be the best such source, although it is written entirely in Hungarian due to the nature of the topic.

I do not think that my addition would be too extensive. Actually, the situation is quite the opposite. The rest of the article would need significant rework and addition of material to properly discuss Rákosi's life and acts in context. I also disagree that it would be unencyclopedic. My paragraphs are discussing facts. Furthermore, these are important facts explaining the fate of the former dictator.

I suggest reverting your revert, i.e., putting my text back into the article.

"Repudiated" not just religion, but Judaism too
Text: he later repudiated religion and totally repudiated Judaism. Meaning? Did he cease to be Jew as per Israeli Law of return? Would it be enough to state 'abandoned Judaism'? or 'religion'. To many people it is important to know that Rakosi is enthnically, a Jew. As to him being secular and communist, this does not make him not-Jew. This is all to divert attention, as if his Jewishness in unimportant. Did he marry out? His heirs not Jewish? Could apply for Israeli citizenship? Any authorities on the subject of Jewishness say he is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 12:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation for birth last name
I think we should give a citation for Rakosi's birth sur name. The original Rosenfeld was listed as needing a citation. I found one, but that showed Rosencrantz, so I added that name and the citation.

It has been reverted back to Rosenfeld with out a citation that I can find.

Which ever name we cite, either use my citation-which shows Rosencrantz or change to Rosenfeld but please give a citation. also, we could offer both names and citations. I think the name change should have a citation. Kosi szepen Magarbatyak.Buddydog21 (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about some explanation of the name Rakosi? The article just says he changed his name from Rosenfeld to Rakosi, with an implication it represented a renunciation of Jewishness. But what does Rakosi mean? Why Rakosi? Might as well say he changed his name to McGillicuddy. Does it mean "Man of Steel" in Hungarian? Venqax (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Origin
There's a slow revert war whether Rákosi was a Jew or not. A book Uprising (about 1956 Hungarian Revolution) from David Irving states (page 37): Born “Matthias Roth” on March 9th, 1892, the son of a Jewish grocer.... Whatever one thing about DI it is not likely invention.

Source for name Rosenfeld is not provided and the whole war feels quite useless. The time spent on it should be dedicated to expand the facts-poor article. Pavel Vozenilek 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not specefied in any mainstream outlet e.g MS Encarata, Brittanica, etc that he was Jewish. Although it is well known that Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Bela Kun were Jews. Zvesda

Mátyás Rákosi was born on March 9th 1892 with the name József Rosenfeld, into a poor jewish family with 12 children. It is well-known and no "revert war" is needed to decide whether it is true or not. (193.6.243.100 09:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

There is not any evidence for such information. Zvesda

There are a lot of evidence, because it is well-known. For example, a rabbi of a hungarian jewish community says here: http://www.zsido.hu/aktiv/rabbiv.php, that Rákosi left his jewish religion and did a lot of harm even for the jews. The link text is hungarian, but I can find you a lot of english evidence on the net, if you want. In hungary, there are some falsification in this case, for example, some say that Rákosi's original name was Manó Roth. It is not correct, "Manó Róth" is a classical nickname for all jews in hungarian culture, but his original name was Rosenfeld. And there is a fear in the hungarian jewish people that Rákosi's jewish origin and his crimes against humanity will be used sometime for helping anti-semitism. Thanks LamaXX

Whether or not he was Jewish, that opening sentence is both stylistically clunky ("Jewish-origin"?) and unnecessary. Rakosi was not a leader of the Jewish community, so there's no need to mention his religion in the opening sentence. Would you describe George W. Bush as a "Christian-origin U.S. President"?

Don't forget: The Jew is not only a religious term, but it is an ethnic term too. However the Christian term hasn't ethnic meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.11.52 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Classifying Jews as an ethnic group is controversial. And I'd say that being Jewish is an religious thing and a cultural thing which people can reject or keep depending on personal preferences. The genetic studies that were sponsored by Israel and other Zionist organizations do not really prove anything as they simply say what the authors' wanted them to say, hence one minute Jews are descended from Jewish males and their female line is European or Central Asian, and then the next minute they are all completely Jewish as if they belong to some master race. It is all pseudo-racist nonsense.

Ethnicity in Central Europe is based on culture. You won't find much genetic difference between Hungarians, Romanians, Slovakians or Serbians.

I propose that we make a simply stated about having a Jewish background without resorting to the racial fallacies of Zionism. 90.203.89.62 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Appeasing Tito?
"In August 1952 he also became prime minister of Hungary, but on 13 June 1953, to appease Tito, he was forced to give up the office to Imre Nagy, while retaining the office of General Secretary."

I know Tito was heavily interested in Hungarian politics at the time, but who was doing the appeasing here? Khrushchev? It is unclear. Twalls 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hungarian dictator"
The reference to Rakosi in the first sentence as "Hungarian dictator" is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. He may very well have been a dictator in the opinion of many people, maybe even the majority of Hungarians, but nonetheless, this is a statement of opinion. I'll note that even Joseph Stalin is not referred to as a dictator at the begining of the article. Peter G Werner 03:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is Rákosi a dictator?
 * "Dictator" has a (modern) definition
 * 1. "a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession" (Random House)
 * 2. "b: one holding complete autocratic control  c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively" (Websters)
 * Rákosi was a non-hereditary ruler who governed oppressively, without restriction. Therefore Rákosi was a dictator.
 * I give my standing consent to any registered editor wishing to remove the POV tag. István 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hitler's regime is also called a dictatorship, still, there is no POV tag put on the article. I therefore remove the POV tag. 85.238.77.55 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The biographies of neither Adolph Hitler nor Joseph Stalin refer to either as "dictaror" in the lead paragraph of the article. I feel to do so is blatantly POV. I've referred this issue to Neutrality Project for a third opinion. I would ask that editors here show some respect for whatever consensus comes out of that discussion. I personally would agree with people here that Rakosi was a Stalinist and a dictator, but Wikipedia is about NPOV and not presentation of our opinions. Iamcuriousblue 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, then we should include a second paragraph where his regime is described and there we can also mention that it was a dictatorship. H-Vergilius 04:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors have always been afraid to call a S.O.B. a S.O.B. It's not a matter of POV, it's a matter of historical truth and fact. But, by WP's standards, Nero, Caligula, and even Attila ought to be treated "with respect" and with "a neutral point of view". Perhaps robots could do that, but human beings have morals, feelings, and a sense of Good and Evil which Wikipedia just cannot dispense with, no matter how many brainy sermons disguised as 'Official Policies" are written. There is an old Spanish saying that recites "Al pan, pan, y al vino, vino" ("To bread, (let's call it) bread, and to wine, wine") How many WP editors are keen on the watch, ready to speedily revert any reference to Fidel Castro as a dictator, or even as a strongman, for example? (both adjectives are understatements, falling short to qualify such monster). Rákosi was a communist S.O.B. (please excuse the redundancy) and a rotten bastard, period. May he burn in Hell forever! --AVM (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Iamcuriousblue, please have a closer look at the lead paragraph of Joseph Stalin. He is clearly called a dictator in the first paragraph even if it is not conspicuous. H-Vergilius 11:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I tried to neutralize a bit. Would it be OK? Or the term 'dictatorship' isn't neutral enough too? H-Vergilius 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are no responses again. There is a Hungarian phrase that 'not speaking is agreeing', so I remove the NPOV tag. H-Vergilius 15:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Economy
The whole section is nonsense.

1) The main cause of the collapse of the economic activities is the destruction of 40% of the national assets in the WWII, although reparations played a role. I don't give reference, because I have yet to see any other figure, than the 40%.

2) The hyperinflation happened before the communist takeover. It was a direct result of the collapse of normal economic relations. As a matter of fact, the creation of the new, stabile Hungarian currency happened on the basis of the Communist Party programme. So, if anything the credit should be given to the Communist Party (the slogan was that Rakosi was the father of the forint)

3) The figures on the industrial output do not make any sense and downright falsified. In 1949 manufacturing output was 40% higher than in 1938 and almost three times as high in 1953 (Pető-Szakács: A hazai gazdaság négy évtizedének története 1945–1985. I. köt. Budapest, 1985, KJK). There are whole chunks in this section that are direct quotations from some Library of Congress material that carries no references. It's, of course, plagiarism.

4) The Marshall Plan preceeded the establishment of the COMECON.

5) There is nothing wrong per se to establish large heavy industry without natural resources (cf. Japan, Korea). The key issue was that from 1951 about a third of the budget went to military expenditure (because of the Korean war). No country can cope with it on a longer run in peace times.

6) The price system and other aspects of the command economy are important, but in the current form they are nonsense (there is always a difference between producer prices and consumer prices this is why they are published separately) and has not got much to do with the subject of the article.

I'm quite happy to draft a short paragraph on the economy, but in any case, the current form is despicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjsteel (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no response in 3 months, I did so. --Redjsteel (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In another book on another yopic, a writer mentions that Rakosi attributed the failure of a Budapest subway project to the "counter-revolutionary nature of the soil." Any info. on the Budapest subway project & degree of success/failure? BubbleDine (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments
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.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mátyás Rákosi. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124044354/http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no144/p79.html to http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no144/p79.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

John Gunther's opinion
It's very nice that John Gunther has an opinion on a historical figure. However, Wikipedia is dedicated to presenting an unbiased view of things, and the existence of said opinions, not only in the article as a whole, but in the intro, severely hinders that goal.

Some form of discussion needs to be had on this, because an opinion being in an encyclopedic article is ridiculous. --TheTransMenace (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)