Talk:Őszöd speech

On the Neutrality of the Article

With reference to the swear words. I read the article. You need to know that I am a Hungarian, and every word is true. It is a fact. No matter which political party you like. I need to emphasize that the article is FACTUAL!!!!

In my opinion the obscenity of the speech --for which the Hungarian PM has received lots of critisism-- is a very important feature which --at least-- should be mentioned. I find that the density of vulgar expressions can be seen as an indicator of the intellectual level of the speech, no matter if someone likes the Hungarian PM or not.

As a native Hungarian, I find that the word kurva (literally: whore) is not only offensive but extremly vulgar, no matter if it is often used by Hungarians in general or not.

The expressions "fucking country" and "bloody country" might be equivalent --with regard to the meaning of both expressions-- but the difference is that the word "bloody" can only be regarded as offensive but not as obscene; in contrast to the word kurva. Therefore, I find that "fucking country" is a better translation than "bloody country".

I find that the comments concerning the biasness of the Hungarian media and the real estate affairs of the Hungarian PM would require references.

To my mind the comment "Now this is an amazingly clear marker that those critics are not without any reason." lacks neutrality. What does "amazingly" supposed to mean?? My suggestion would be: "Since the Hungarian opposition members find the Hungarian media to be biased towards MSZP and SZDSZ, this comment of the Hungarian PM is seen as a confirmnation of this statement."

In my opinion, the comment "Ferenc Gyurcsány had scandalous deals in the past." lacks neutrality as well. My suggestion would be: "There has been debatable deals.." and to adjust the rest of the comment correspondingly.

Bcserna

• May I remark that "kurva" is not merely obscene -- it means whore or prostitute, which has the connotation of an abused, helpless, very vulnerable, morally compromised entity. I believe this makes it offensive in the context of an already small country. "Fucked country" might be an unusual but good translation choice. Otherwise, the full text should probably be moved to the citation wiki. 84.2.212.72 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let me point out that "Húzzatok már a picsába ezzel." is a lot more obscene than "Go to hell with that already." And I mean a lot more. It's the c-word.

I've pointed this out in the table. Anyway, this is a pretty good and accurate article on this subject. 87.194.167.167 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Did the BBC lie?

This article needs rewriting, why would the BBC deliberately lie, maybe their translation is merely erroneous? Tim! 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven`t read the translation, but I suspect that they omitted the swear words, because it is unacceptable to swear in the media.

The article claimed that BBC "lied" in its translation.

That raises two questions:

• Was BBC translation incorrect ?
• Was it a deliberate deception ?

Only if both were true, it is reasonable to claim that BBC lied.

I don't speak any Hungarian, but British English "bloody country" is pretty much equivalent to American English "fucking country". Other examples aren't very convincing either - if there was a mistranslation, it had to be a pretty small one. Any native Hungarian to comment ?

Yes. I am a native Hungarian. He said "kurva ország". Kurva=bitch, or whore. Ország=country. In England, you wouldn`t say "bitch country". In this context "kurva ország" means bloody country, or fucking country, or goddamn country. It doesn`t make too much difference, but his speech was definitely obscene. And the word "kurva" is a swear word. Choose the most obscene one.:) Sometimes, it can be difficult to translate texts from Hungarian into English.

And even if it was a mistranslation, is there anything that would suggest a deliberate attempt to deceit readers ? Taw 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It might just be an automatic use of eupheism, or, in the worst case, the translation was made by pro-Gyurcsány journalists on the Hungarian side. The BBC should not be blamed for it. It is a new, and interesting question for the wikipedians: if a government admits that they lied, could their later media-statements be considered reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V. Szabolcs (talk • contribs)

If I admit that I ate up all chocolate at home yesterday, can I be trusted I wouldn't do it tomorrow? chery 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-len 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Lying means telling untrue statements deliberately or hiding important information. BBC knows that it is untrue, because I asked them to correct it, and one cannot argue that they omitted some of the critical sentences.

Just because it is untrue I do not think that "lied" is warranted for. I think its more accurate to say they are twisting the meaning by deliberate omision and softening of tone. Yes it was probably deliberate and yes they did omit an important sentence. I still dont think they "lied" but rather "twisted the meaning". Feel free to adjust the exact phrase, but I disagree with the "BBC lied" phrase. Shinhan 11:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no. There's only one scenario whereupon we can say the BBC "lied" and that is if another reliable source says so. The BBC is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is all about reporting what reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not about the truth, Wikipedia is not about detective work, Wikipedia is not about original theories or research. We collate and compile information from other sources and present it to the reader - no more, no less. --kingboyk 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-len 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Tim! Would you please stop damaging this page in the name of protecting BBC beyond any sense? BBC makes mistakes and unfortunately this case is a clear example of this. I kindly asked them to correct it, but they ignored me completely.

The BBC translations are fine, they never failed to mention that the speech was punctuated by obscenities. (Also that it was not meant to be publicly released - about which by the way some suspicion might arise.) Oh and the BBC is obviously closely linked with the Hungarian left-wing, eh... best, --- gergely

Wikipedia-len 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC) What fraction of the English people speeks Hungarian? Very - very few. This is the reason why the BBC's tended to hire Hungarians as Hungarian correspondent or to help an English correspondent who doesn't speek Hungarian. The Hungarian broadcast of the BBC radio was in fact made by Hungarian journalist delegated by Magyar Rádió (Hungarian Radio). This implies the possibility that BBC can be easily misleaded in non-English language countries.

wikipedia-len (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits are completely out of policy, there is no source to corroborate his claims about the BBC's translation and the sections should be completely removed. Tim! 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you are a big BBC fan, but can you imagine that by any chance the BBC sometimes can be wrong? Please answer this question I am asking seriously. Wikipedia-len 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You could try reading some of the comments on this page like "There's only one scenario whereupon we can say the BBC "lied" and that is if another reliable source says so." above by kingboyk. You have removed "lied" but you are still making claims about the veracity of the translation uncorrobarted by any sources. Why is there no discussion about translations by other media outlets such as New York Times or Le Monde Tim! 19:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim you absolutely don't get it! The world "lied" is not on the page anymore, did you notice that? Now that we maked this clear, would you please remove POV tag? 213.16.111.72 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is still "The BBC unfortunately failed to deliver the exact message in its translation. They omited and modified maybe the most upsetting parts of the speech namely the "this fucking country" phrase." which has no source. Tim! 19:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As some before me already pointed out, Wikipedia is not for publishing “original researches”, so I agree with removing the section. Mentioning that BBC's translation was euphemistic is way enough. There's no need and no place here to take a stand. chery 19:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What about not deleting the whole BBC section, just making it more neutral? For example, just write the uncensored version without strikethrough and bold font, and/or without the Mistranslation-Corrected table splitting. Maybe using the "softening" or "euphemism" words instead the "serial mistranslation"? V. Szabolcs 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically just have a small section "BBC makes an error in translation of a speech"... is it even worthwhile? Still if you want to try that out, your welcome to have a go. Tim!

Tim! I think you are incapable of judging BBC neutrally, because you have very strong emotional bonds to it: practically each of your contribution to Wikipedia is about BBC. Wikipedia-len 08:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Translation is not the translation of words

A note to those discussing the question whether the BBC's translation constitutes a lie because of the claimed difference of the words used in it. Translation is not about translating words but translating texts. The Wikipedia entry on translation gives a very good overview of this. Translation is not the translation of each word to what one thinks means the same in the other language, it is the communication of the message of the source text in the target text. There are a number of language and cultural differences that make it necessary for the BBC translation to sound different than the original. One of these is that the BBC (and other international news agencies) cannot allow for excess profanity to appear in its official coverage. Thus it euphemizes the speech. This action does not create a "lie" because the integrity of the text is otherwise preserved and the meaning of the text is the same regardless of the exact swear word used. Most importantly, the BBC does not aim to show what kind of swear words the Prime Minister articulates, but to interpret and communicate the meaning of different parts of the speech. This they have done and there is no objection to be made against the general translation of the speech. I advise editors of the page to take the above into consideration when deciding the authenticity of the BBC's translation. AdamDobay 10:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fucking country" or "bloody country"?

(sorry for duplicating some comments)

Wikipedia-len Can you explain why is the translation "twisted"?

"kurva ország" can be translated as "bloody country"; "f**king country" would be "kibaszott ország" in Hungarian, which Gyurcsány did not say. Adam78 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"kurva" in fact means whore, but is also used as an adjective, so "fucking" is probably closer to the original. the translation on this page is correct, IMHO, as is the BBC traslation. – Alensha  ^talk 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"kurva <something>" is a common impetuous phrase. let me try to explain with an example. you try to turn the tv on, but it's not operating as you would expected and whatever you try, you can't fix it. you might say "ez a kurva tv nem működik" meaning "this fucking tv is not working" (and even kick it). in this situation you are not angry for the tv, you are angry for the situation (bec the tv not working properly). your only goal is to fix it, you realy want to do that, bec you like your tv. Gyurcsány want to end the lying, bec he tired of it. they had to lie, bec you can't win the election by saying "We will raise tax!" while, the other side saying "We will decrease tax, to fix the deficit, becouse we are very god!" (obviously lying too). this was a very impetuous (25sec long) speech to his party (not a public interview), after a 3h long argument about the reforms they have to accomplish. -Zoltán, 20 September 2006

Wikipedia-len 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) "Bloody country" can be translated as "átkozott ország" which means "goddamned country" literally. But "kurva ország" is much more offensive and totally unacceptable in politics opposed to "bloody". To make my point stronger: would it be accepted if the article title of Blair's 48 bloody hours had been Blair's 48 fucking hours? Of course, not. Bloody and fucking are not equal at all.

I can't comment specificaly about this article as I don't speak any Hungarian, but generally in diffrent languages words have diffrent emotional values attached to them (for example in English, or at least in America, for historic reasons the word Negro is considered indecent and replaced with desciptive terms like black or african while all around it's considered to be something perfectly neutral). We just need to have native speakers explain how offensive the words that were used there are.

I can comment on this by saying that the words that Gyurcsány spoke are horrible, in any language. Obviously, he didn't know that the interview would make its way into the public. Oops ;). somody 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This article seems really biased to me, not only for its choice of emphasis (what's the point in "highlighting" some bad words or offensive sentences?) but also - as many pointed out - it's obviously weak translation of the original text, seriously lacking precision. As colloquial hungarian is way "dirtier" than english, people use the word "kurva" a lot more often than Americans use "fuckin". Hence, it has lost a lot of its offensive edge and "kurva ország" should be translated by "goddamn country". Please don't use deliberate mistranslations for political ends, will ya? (Tomkut 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia-len 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC) "Fucking" = "kurva", "goddamn" = "istenverte". And you're right "goddamn" is less offensive, but unfortunately Gyurcsány said "kurva" ("fucking") not "istenverte" or "átkozott" which could be translated as "goddamn". Please Tomkut, be unbiased, and stick to the facts!

At one point (1960s, 1970s) the use of the word "bloody" in England was equivalent to the use of the word "fucking" in America, and that it was considered a harsher profanity than the term "fucking" in England. Let's give the BBC the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just way behind the times. –Thibbs 10:16, 20 September 2006

One thing I feel people aren't keeping in mind is that direct translation cannot always occur between two languages as culturally diverse as English and Hungarian. For those who understand Hungarian slang, you know that (as Tomkut stated) "kurva" does not exactly equate to "fucking" in English. You must realize that, in Hungarian, it's not nearly as offensive to use what we consider "dirty" words in casual conversation. I feel that there should be a cultural disclaimer saying that the words "kurva" does not directly translate to "fucking" (depending on context it can roughly translate to: whore, bitch, or even damned). "Bassza meg" is much closer to the severity of the English word "fuck." I feel that people will take this translation to be much more vulgar than it was intended in the native tongue, all personal views and politics aside. -A-Phunk 14:10, 20 September 2006

Wikipedia-len 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC) What you don't think of is the fact that for a politician to use the word "kurva" in public speech is NOT acceptable at all, while "damned", "bloody" are. That's why I am certain that "kurva ország" means "fucking country" in English.

I completely agree, if it were a public speech it wouldn't be acceptable. This, however, was a private talk within the Hungarian Socialist Party that was made public after the fact (perhaps leaked to the public is more accurate). He was addressing his own party members, not the public at large. As for that being your linguistic rational...I just don't get it, sorry. -A-Phunk 20:40, 20 September 2006

Wikipedia-len 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC) In the protesters' opinion "fucking country" is not tolerable at all even if the PM said it to his dog. I hope this help understand their feeling.

Unbiased or not?

This article seems really biased to me, not only for its choice of emphasis (what's the point in "highlighting" some bad words or offensive sentences?) but also - as many pointed out - it's obviously weak translation of the original text, seriously lacking precision. As colloquial hungarian is way "dirtier" than english, people use the word "kurva" a lot more often than Americans use "fuckin". Hence, it has lost a lot of its offensive edge and "kurva ország" should be translated by "goddamn country". Please don't use deliberate mistranslations for political ends, will ya? (Tomkut 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia-len 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Dear Tomkut, unfortunately you haven't read the page careful enough. You are talking about "highlighting" in the text. If you have a look at once more you will find out that bold letters are used for comparison purposes only. If there is no comparison you won't find any bold letter.

Please don't be emotional! You are labeling me instead of pointing out what you exactly don't understand with.

Oh, climb out of your arses, people. The BBC softened a few naughty words in translation. Big deal. We're not exactly talking about 1984 territory here. El Jaber 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-len 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Dear El Jaber, maybe you should climb out of your arse too. There are a mass protests and riots in Hungary, and this speech made its impact among other factors related to the goverment. It absolutely does matter what was the tone of the words!

Hello! well, it is quite clear that the primary purpose of this article is far from providing objective information. a column for 'explanations'!! :) repeating right-wing talking points does not bring a foreigner closer to understand the origins of this speech.

Wikipedia-len 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC) I would like to strictly decline your labelling about right-wing talking point. The explanation column is based on facts entirely. You haven't heard about it? This the consequence of the biased press coverage I am struggling against.

The "explanation" column is way too partial. I beleive that column wasn't based on BBC's or any other (more or less) objective sources of information. - Bela

Wikipedia-len 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Bela, you're wrong. That column is based on facts absolutely. Could you please explain why are you saying exactly the opposite?

That column might be based on facts, but facts as presented by the right-wing. It's subjective to state ONLY right-wing opinions on these "facts". The left-wing has very sound explanations too. I doubt BBC would provide such detailed information as we can see in the explanation column without at least mentioning the left-wing's position in these matters. For example, when the PM speaks about "public moneys" or "taxpayer money", in my opinion he's not talking about how state possessions were privatized, he's much more likely to speak about health-care and free(mostly) education which are institutions the PM is currently reorganizing(hun:"reformok","Gyurcsany csomag"). Also, the language used in the explanation column is completely inappropriate, exagerrations such as "Now this shows AMAZINGLY CLEARLY that those critics are not without reason." are just intolerable in any objective document. - Bela

Wikipedia-len 13:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Dear Bela, if you insist on it I remove "amazingly clearly". On your other comments. Please stop boring us by accusing those explanations with being right-wing biased. They are absolutely not. If you think that the explanations are incomplete than please feel free to complete them! But please stick to the facts.

I'm very sorry to bore you, dear Wikipedia-len. Please be a bit more tolerant, my opinion has, I believe, as much right to exist as yours. It is in fact because I believe everyone has the right to express his or her opinion that I didn't suggest erasing things (that I absolutely disagree with) you wrote in this article. You see, I don't want to suppress your point of view; I merely want to see something in the article reminding people that the "explanations" provided are not the ONLY possible explanations. Also, I would like to ask you to write "bore *ME*" instead of "bore us" as you did, I am making this request of you because, so far, *YOU* are the only self-righteous individual I have bored. And finally, it is very nice of you though to allow me to add information, but I don't consider myself objective enough to provide extra information to the article. The "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag has satisfied most of my thirst for a little objectivity. - Bela

Bela, please stop offending me (not "tolerant", "self-righteous"). I never offended you, I always wrote to you in a respectful manner. Thank you. Wikipedia-len 08:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My message is neither disrespectful nor offending. Please read it again. I suggest looking up the words you have pointed out in a dictionary. - Bela

You people are missing the point, It is really not about attacking each other, because the case is simple and crystal clear. The PM lied. The Hungarians grew angry. Their anger is righteous. No arguments. No personal opinions. Facts.

This is a clear-cut case of a POV article. It presents "facts" from the POV of the writer/translation as well as many serious POV sentences (the aforementioned AMAZINGLY CLEARLY is one of these) and original research. Many, many Wikipedia guidelines broken here. AdamDobay 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-len 13:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) I strictly decline your non-NPOV accusation. If you find "amazingly clearly" important then, it is removed now, so maybe you should reconsider your judgement. On your other comments: This page absolutely conforms the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Maybe you should check it once more!

The whole speech is not yet covered on this page

The whole article as a Wikipedia article seems pointless at the moment. There is no overview of the content and all of the excerpts are sentences out of context. The article is written in a way to emphasize the speech's obscenity which is clearly not the only important thing about it, since many parts of the the content itself are points of debate. The article's "explanations" are POV, not to speak of the BBC section. The whole article needs an NPOV rewrite. AdamDobay 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-len 13:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Dear AdamDobay, I think you condemn too easily. If something is missing from this article, it doesn't mean that the whole article is pointless. I would like to ask you to make this page more complete by translating other parts of the speech too, instead of being destructive.

I agree with AdamDobay, there is a flagrant disregard for impartiality in exerpt selection. - Bela

I totally agree with AdamDobay (pointless, POV). One example I'm actually removing: the translation of the sentence "Nem arról szól, hogy nekem van egy Á-tól Z-ig megírt forgatókönyvem Magyarországra és azt mondom, hogy ki fogom belőletek verni. Egy francot!". (This was added by Bcserna on 2006-10-02T23:18:53.) The translation is currently "This is not about me having a screenplay written for Hungary from A to Z and saying that I will jerk it off of you. Damn it!". However, In my opinion, although kiverni can mean to jerk off, its literal meaning is beat [it] out, and (again, in my opinion), that's what is the intended meaning in this context, i.e. "This is not about me having a screenplay written for Hungary from A to Z and saying that I will beat (push, squeeze) it out of you. Damn it!". Note that I'm a native Hungarian young male and I consider myself speaking dirty quite often, but when I read the sentence, it didn't occur to me that it was about masturbation.
April's Fool 10:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I did not know that. Eh. Well that definitely strengthens the need of the official English translation to be put in place of the original research translation that is in there now. AdamDobay 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, replace it, but only if we find a full English translation. All those on the BBC, CNN, etc. homepages, are only excerpts. So we should find another oficial translation with the omitted (and, coincidently, more controversial and/or offending) parts --V. Szabolcs 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia-len, you did not exactly answer my question: i'm not talking about bold letters, but the fact that you put the emphasis on certain aspects of the speech, while ignoring the main point of Gyurcsány. You quote all the "bad words" and put them into neatly edited charts, then you do the same with all the parts you suppose to be "revolting" (like the one about the press-cooperation or the protesters getting tired of protesting), and you totally miss the main reason why this speech was presented back in May. Why don't you mention the fact that the PM talks about being sick and tired of masking the truth, just in order to win an election - obviously, it's hard to be honest and reasonable as a politician when your main rival is, IMHO, the most populist and unscrupulous political force of these last 16 years in Hungary. Where's the part of your analysis where you talk about the PM's commitment to carry out the reforms he believes are necessary and righteous and that no political party dared to even touch with a ten foot pole in the last 10 years? Where's the part of your analysis where he talks about a politician's duty and tries to convince his fellow socialist politicians that personnal career and their own job-safety should come second to their duty as politicians, and I could go on and on... I Instead, you collected the "bad words", i mean please... you could be more serious, even if you are biased (and yes, everybody is, to a certain extent). I really think that you failed to present the very essence of the speech and that this article is really far from being objective. Tomkut 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You provide very good points Tomkut and I think the exact parts of speech you mentioned are the same ones that are analyzed by political and media analysts in Hungary and all over the world. I think to make this article NPOV we should first look if the BBC has done a full translation of the text, and if they have, insert excerpts that describe important points of the speech from the official translation between a general overview of the topics of the speech and the overview of the national and international responses and analyses. This must replace the current nitpicking version because as I have just listened to the whole 25-30 minutes of speech on the radio and the current article contains sentences that are often misleading because they are taken out of their contexts. Currently this article doesn't do the situation any good. AdamDobay 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Even if you have a look at the whole speech you won't find any unambiguous sign of the intention to stop lying. 2. This speech was not supposed to go public, so I think it cannot be taken as an honest confession. Wikipedia-len 08:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, we had a "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag at the beginning of the article at some point, but it's now removed. Why? I don't see any significant changes made to the article that would justify the removal of that cute little tag. It would be very nice if someone with enough authority and technical ability would put the tag back. - Bela

Wikisource

Shouldn't this be in the Wikisource? This article doesn't analyze the speech itself, and there is already an article about the effects of it (actually about the protests that followed.--Dami 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved. Dsol 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that the speech would still be covered by copyright. It is neither something that could be licensed as manifesto or government edict, so I don't think that WS can received the work under s:WS:IO. Hence, I believe that the tag should be removed at this point in time. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Tim! and others who are using this tag without using the discussion page. Write down here your opinions, why not is this article neutral? Use concrete sentences, not such weasel terms as you did (for ex: clearly biased), because there is no such terms as "BBC lied", but you fight for your thruth without any sign of compromise, so I've to start it instead of you. --195.56.91.43 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're simply trolling now. Tim! 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are the most important expressions

There are two most important and the most criticised parts of the speech but aren't in the article:

1. Nincsen sok választás. Azért nincsen, mert elkúrtuk. Nem kicsit, nagyon. Európában ilyen böszmeséget még ország nem csinált, mint amit mi csináltunk.
   1. ~~ There is not much possibility. There is not, because we've cocked it up. Not a bit, but much. No country in Europe have done such idiotism ever, what we've done.
2. Meg lehet magyarázni. Nyilvánvalóan végighazudtuk az utolsó másfél-két évet. Teljesen világos volt, hogy amit mondunk, az nem igaz. Annyival vagyunk túl az ország lehetőségein, hogy mi azt nem tudtuk korábban elképzelni, hogy ezt a Magyar Szocialista Párt és a liberálisok közös kormányzása valaha is megteszi.
   1. ~~ It can be explained. It is obvious we lied along the last one-two years. It was fully bright that we said was not true. We went over our country's possibilities so that we couldn't imagine before, that the common governing of Hungarian Socialist Party and the liberals do this.
3. És közben egyébként nem csináltunk semmit négy évig. Semmit.
   1. Otherwise we haven't done anything for four years. anything.

Bacground of criticism:

1. Gyurcsány admitted that they missed, and they missed governing. They done it wrong. I think no comment needed for this.
2. The most terrifiing is this! In the 2006 elections campaign they promised to carry on their earlier politics. Fidesz said "we live worse than four years before" and they said the socialists make a wrong politics in economy and they will have to carry lifeline-limiting politics in the future. Gyurcsány denied that many times. But now he admitted: fidesz was right (remark: this is not fully new. Gyurcsány earlier said that "I didn't lie but I didn't strip all parts of truth". But in Őszöd he said more: yes, he lied very much). Fidesz said in the elections campaign socialists concealed the state of economy of hungary, they lied a better future for people (but it wasn't true) and so they win by making the people fool. Gyurcsány admitted it: in essence this is true.
3. The opposition said about socialist they don't deal with politics, they haven't got a real conception, they do only make-believe, for bringing over people. Gyurcsány admitted it now, too: it was true in essence.

But not only this speech was disgusting for lot people, but the way Gyurcsány managed it.

1. He said the speech is a brave admittance of their wrong politics and he want to break out from liars. But this is not true, as lot says, because this speech was not public! Someone leaked it (not Gyurcsány, probably), but if this someone didn't do it, people didn't know it! (i.e. "Gyurcsány did't come clean on his own free will, he was caught"). Gyurcsány had three or four months from May (date of the balatonőszöd speech) to September. And he didn't say anything like these to people, in public, only to his co-conspirative socialist party fellows.
2. A lot people think that, in a normal country a leader should have resign, if it is proved about him he didn't govern for four years. But Gyurcsány said he will stay in his office. ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2006. September 26 21:49 (CEST) 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality + unsourced tags stay

Dear editors, Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This article has not one source cited, and almost all of the article's text is original research. This is not the place for anyone to provide their own opinion and translation. I advise you all to read the corresponding guideline page which says that Wikipedia is not to be used for original research (none of the article's claims are provided with sources and the translation does not come from an official source), stating opinions of current affairs (this article states an opinion instead of covering the issue from a neutral point of view) or propaganda (currently the article presents the issue from the viewpont of the current Hungarian opposition). Until these issues are settled the NPOV tag stays as well as the unreferenced tag. Do not remove them and if you haven't done so yet, read and adhere to the rules. AdamDobay 06:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Intercultural difference

Though the translations in the text are correct (I am native as well), though one has to point to the intercultural differences as well by the translations. In Hungarian, swearwords are more part of the everyday speech as they do in the Englisch language. That is why the word-by-word translation sound more rough in English than the original one. In the above dispute, I rather am on the side of translating the text as "bloody country" than "f*cking country". It also has to be mentiones, that the speech was made among the close comrades, so it was not a public speech. The situation was an informal one, and in Hungarian informal communication (with close friedns, comrades, etc.) it is almost inevitable to use some swearwords. At least it is more accepted than in English.

I so think, that the intercultural differences have also to be taken care of by discussing this speech... Greetings 88.66.17.71 11:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot my password and cannot sign in :))

"In Hungarian, swearwords are more part of the everyday speech" ... this can be very relative. Maybe it's part of the everyday speech of certain social classes, but those social classes in the English-speaking world do use the f-word a lot. And, to make it clear, you cannot see such profane words in Hungarian official texts, speeches, or polite conversations. --V. Szabolcs 15:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, it's indisputable, that the swear words are more parts of everyday speech. Social classes? Nowadays the borders are not so huge than hundred years ago. On a university as well as on a building site they use swearwords in INFORMAL context... I maintain that with the word by word translation of this text the meaning is lost, for it sounds different in English. Yes, you cannot find swearwords in official texts or polite conversation, but this was a speech under comrades, in informal situation and the intention was to urge and the audience... the content of the article is imbalanced and I think it will be umpossible to create a factual article from it, for there will always be some political-activist, who rewrite the article... the stance now mirrors rather the right-party point of view... 88.66.28.120 22:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed copy to Wikisource

I have removed the {{copy to Wikisource}} and the why relates to whether the text either in its original form AND its translated form are in the public domain. Wikisource requires that works need to be in the public domain to be hosted. Here the work is a 2000s speech, and there is no evidence that the author has put the work into the public domain with regard to copyright. Further the work has been translated and there is no licence that the translation is in the public domain for copyright either. I am not even sure that Wikipedia should be hosting the whole content of the speech, as one would think that this could constitute a breach of Fair use. We need to be able to differentiate between the public's right to know, and the public's right to reuse, and here it seems that we have gone past that point. Some of the parts at this article are tending to merge the news factor with the encyclopaedic factor and this should be reviewed. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not sure what you mean. There are multiple issues with the above comment, first of all the translation has a clear for wikipedia licence, by the user who contributed it. By pressing the submit button they have released the text under the appropriate licence at the time. Or is it that you think they did not make the translation themselves? Do you have any evidence to that? And the second issue is that As far as I know there is no copyright claim possible in this case in the first place. In fact you are the first person over 5 years who I heard raise the possibility even, but of course it could be possible. I think there is no basis for any claims here, the law simply does not allow it to my knowledge. Tbh it would be pretty outrageous if political speech by incumbent presidents/prime ministers could be hidden from the public via copyright. I certainly never heard such a thing and I'm pretty sure it's not possible. But if you think it's an issue, just write a detailed summary of the speech's content with your own words, I think it would pretty much cover any possible objections. Hobartimus (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Willful Distortion

This translation is presented in an unbelievably slanted way (and the translation is pretty atrocious too). It is nevertheless completely transparent to anyone who reads it honestly and sensibly for substance (rather than to count obscenities) that this was entirely benign speech, meant to motivate colleagues toward doing better, rather than the nefarious "confession" that opponents have spun it as being. As good an example as any is the expression "this fucking country" (ez a kurva ország): The right way to understand it (and it *can* be understood) is as in "I love this fucking country" which is synonymous with "I fucking *love* this country." It really takes willful and malevolent distortion to portray it as contempt or disdain. History will show how this stolen text was wilfully and cynically and viciously misused to imply the very opposite of what it really meant, in order to demonize Gyurcsány and his government and inflame disgruntled masses against him. What this "translation" needs is some sensible annotation, not po-faced obscenity counts. --Stevan Harnad 06:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)