Talk:Imre Kertész

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

Start class[edit]

This article should be considered a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.125 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cluj addition[edit]

Vasile, I don't disagree with the information in your addition. However, it is poor English and the prose must be corrected. For example, in English one does not say "Magyars"; I know in Romanian you can say maghiarii, but in English the proper nomenclature is "ethnic Hungarians". You wrote that Kertész "is writing", but in this passage such a progressive verb tense is inappropriate, better English is "regularly writes". We don't use the word "publicized" in this sense, but rather when one is talking about a written piece the appropriate word is "published". "Severly restraint" is ungrammatical, the proper form would be "restrained". And so on. I am grateful that you added this information to the article--I spend a lot of time in Cluj and didn't know that Kertész expressed an opinion on events in this city--and I hope you'll continue to contribute. But please, understand that a native speaker may occasionally have to improve the tone of an addition. CRCulver 14:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar vs. Hungarian? --Vasile 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "Magyar" is used in English, it usually refers to the several Hungarian-speaking tribes that came into the Carpathian basin in 896, not to any modern people. We say "ethnic Hungarian". Furthermore, you need to leave the link Cluj-Napoca. Before, you put only Cluj, which links to the page on the whole judet. The university, however, is inside the city of Cluj, and so we need to use "Cluj-Napoca" to link to the right page. I have included the Hungarian name and the fact that it is in Transylvania to give necessary background on why Kertész would even care. The average reader in the West would be confused at why a Hungarian author is talking about Romania; with some detail that it is a bilingual city with Hungarian inhabitants, then it is clear. CRCulver 20:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One note, CRCulver, you are wrong, Magyar is fully correct in modern English even for the modern Magyars. "Ethnic Hungarians" sounds artificial in professional texts. This is a purely linguistic observation I am not commenting this particular article or any other article. We have discussed this already here somewhere. I would consider a professional text using "ethnic Hungarians" suspicious.Juro 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do a Google search for cluj + "ethnic Hungarians". You'll get over 12,000 hits. The use of ethnic + ethnonym is well-established in English to refer to minorities in one country who speak the language of the neighouring country. This found popular exposure during the wars in the Balkans when the terms "ethnic Serbs" and "ethnic Croats" were frequently heard in the news. CRCulver 02:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and FWIW, the first Google hit is from the BBC: "...Mr Funar, notorious for his hostility to ethnic Hungarians...". Surely the terminology of so respected a source as the BBC can be trusted. CRCulver 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other term for Serbians etc., but there is one for Hungarians, that is the difference. Secondly, you do not have to explain to me what "ethnic+X" means, I am not 5 years old and I am working with such texts, therefore I know very well, how the individual nations are called in English. I can only repeat that using "Magyars" in professional texts (BBC is not a professional text) is the standard option. I have not said that "ethnic Hungarians" is wrong or not used, I only said that using this term is a proof of ignorance, given that there is a more precise and correct term. You will also find the term Magyars in normal English encyclopaedias, in other words, what you have said above (namely that Magyar is only used for the 9th century) shows great ignorance on your part. You should express your opinion only on topics you are familiar with. Juro 07:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is discussed here (Magyars vs. Hungarians section).
Yes, and it shows the small group favouring "Magyars" losing to the crowd showing that "Hungarian" is the standard nomenclature in English. 02:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the examples (links) mentioned there? Anyway, the point here is that it is just inacceptable to tell to a user that it is wrong to use the term Magyar. Juro
Vasile, I demand an explanation of why you don't want any mention that Babes is in Cluj-Napoca in Transylvania. If you don't stop this deleting of useful information, which can be fairly called vandalism (especially considering your lack of a defence on the Talk page), I will take you to RfA. Knock it off. CRCulver 02:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take me wherever you want. The location of University is detailed in its article. You have to keep to the subject: Kertesz. You can be a contributor to the related articles if you want to. --Vasile 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article about Kertész doesn't require cutting out all background information for the disputes he is in. I have reported you at Vandalism in Progress. I wish you and your bigoted and idiosyncratic editing could just go back to the Romanian Wikipedia. CRCulver 03:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to prove the "feeling" assertion. --Vasile 04:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. In idiomatic English "feeling" means "holding the opinion that..." and if one reads the article Kertész wrote, then that is entirely clear. CRCulver 04:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If everybody reads Kertesz, what good would be this encyclopedia anyway? You have to prove your assertions. By the way, count your reverts at this article you made in less that one hour. --Vasile 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are making no sense whatsoever. You added this paragraph to the article, and now you want to remove most information from it? I wrote that Kertész expressed an opinion in an article, the article is available for all to read. That's the proof. Oh, and reverting is fair game if vandalism is involved, and when users fail to give a defence on the Talk page, then it can be fairly considered vandalism. Personally, I wonder what your purpose is here. Is it just to harass those who would mention ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania? Because if nationalism is your motivation, then Wikipedia doesn't need you. CRCulver 04:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Vasile 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Political views[edit]

Chronological, Kertesz adressed first the petition for the separate university. In FAZ, he expressed an opinion in sustaining his petition. The article is 0.85 euro but the petion seems to be essential. Generally, it is a view on Magyar minority in Romania, a political view. --Vasile 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling speculation[edit]

"Feeling that study opportunities for ethnic Hungarians at the city were severly curtailed" -my impression is that only the text of the petition may show exactly the nature of those "feelings". --Vasile 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the word "multicultural" as it is POV in this context. Since Kertesz and many others feel that it is not multicultural, we cannot just go ahead and say it is. CRCulver 02:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

I don't get the point of that photo of Kertész with a friend. Is the friend trying to attract attention to himself? If there is already a portrait of Kertész in the entry, then why do we need that second one? I believe the friend is not even mentioned in the article. 76.237.107.242 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Refuge and immigration[edit]

The quotes attributed to Kertesz and removed in this edit appear to be accurate, though I'm not so sure about the framing. Reliable source:

  • "Nobel laureate sees Europe's liberalism suicidal", The Budapest Times, September 13, 2015

— Brianhe (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imre Kertész. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's since when?[edit]

The Guardian obituary says "Often tempted by suicide, Kertész somehow persevered and it was not until 2003 in his novel Felszámolás (Liquidation, 2003) that he produced a hero who actually kills himself. The ending to that book was probably influenced by his recurring depression after he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease." I have tried finding sources of when Kertész might have been diagnosed with Parkinson's. From this reference I understand that it was before 2003. However @Christian Roess: introduced "recently been diagnosed" after the mention of 2013 hip operation. That should be rephrased I guess as it implies he was diagnosed in 2013. What say? This 2010 ref does mention Parkinson's. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct @Dharmadhyaksha: this needs to be corrected and rephrased. I read over The Guardian obit for Kertész, and he certainly was diagnosed with Parkison's disease before 2013. Let's change it. Please revise it as you see fit, and I'll check back and see how it looks.Thanks for reviewing this and catching my error. Christian Roess (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2014...[edit]

"In November 2014, Kertész was the subject of an interview with The New York Times." I know it's a Nobel Prize but I don't think he could made an interview 9 months after his death... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owendassstaf (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


edit: he died in 2016, not 2014, that's why.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imre_Kertész&oldid=1194723396"