Talk:György Lukács

message: The tag "szegedi" before the 'real' name Lukács György indicates that the Lukács family had (1) nobility and (2) originated from the city of Szeged. However, such tags were only used in extremely formal situations. They were regarded more as addition to the name of an individual than a part of it. (This is indicated by the fact that they were never capitalized.)
:So why is it capitalized in the article?
:Why is it that Lukács' full name is not used at the beginning of this article. According to http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Georg_Lukacs, his full name in Hungarian was Szegedi Lukács György Bernát - his full name in German is listed underneath his image in the infobox. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Regarding the recent edit  : first, that is not a minor edit by any standard.  Second, the opinion that Lukács was an "apologist for Stalinism" is pure POV.  It would be best to Avoid weasel words and cite a source for this opinion, rather than contend that it "is generally believed," which is dubious in any case. -- Rbellin 01:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The original piece wasn't mine, I just edited away what NPOV I could.  Someone who is a Lukacs specialist needs to do the cite work.  Maybe wikipedia needs a standard header "This article lacks citations.  If you can add citations to substantiate some of the views present in this article, please do so." just like the stub headerFifelfoo 05:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Dear Gubbubu, I'll be doing some copyediting (mostly Anglicising your language to English norms) of your changes.  Of course its the Hungarian Red Army in 1919 :).  I'll also clarify that Lukacs can't be considered responsible for the /second/ period of persecution of Bibo.  Fifelfoo 22:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry four bed Engglish, pleese! I was in a hurry. May bee I not spick English well, that's reel. 
Please correct my informations about Bibo if you think you can and if you can. I'm don't sure in him (have resources but only a remark in it says Lukács attacked Bibo). I'm mainly sure in the information about/of Hamvas , he is a famous victim of Lukács. Gubbubu 00:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit 

message: "As Lukács lived in the Soviet Union during the 1940s, he can be considered to have been an agent of the Soviet Security apparatus during this period, much as Imre Nagy was. (See Granville, 1995)."
Can be considered? What does this mean?
International communist intellectuals who lived in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s, who survived, survived because they were recruited to the State Security apparatus.  "Can be considered," means that while there's no direct evidence in the case of Lukacs, the fact that survivors of the 1940s survived because they were recruited, means that we can consider, ie, believe, that Lukacs was a state security agent, at least during the 1940s. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a methodologically really problematic inference. Surely if you're going to accuse someone of being an "agent of the Soviet Security apparatus" (what exactly that means is unclear) you need better evidence than this somewhat brutal syllogism.  Sindinero (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: That History and Class Consciousness was an influence on 'Being and Time was the contention of Lucien Goldmann, but is there anywhere where Heidegger acknowledges this? The article presents it as a statement of fact Hanshans23 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lukács influence on Heidegger 

message: I have nominated Neo-marxism for deletion, Please see:  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo marxism 

message: I've just added a further reading section, in the hopes that this will be the beginning of a process in which we collect reliable sources on Lukacs and eventually integrate them into the article proper. Besides being poorly sourced, the article could use a section that deals with the evaluation of Lukacs' theoretical and literary-theoretical work. I think this is probably more important (if less catchy) than the main evaluative thrust of the article in its current state, namely was-he-a-Stalinist-or-wasn't-he.
I've also noticed that the references section isn't in wikipedia format. Part of the process of improving this article will thus have to be providing the text with inline citations and a proper references section, and moving all the other sources not cited in the article to the Further reading section.
Sindinero (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Sindinero, the references do need to be put in Wiki Cite format; further more, there are a lot of 'Sources' listed in the References section but with no connection to the content written in the article itself. I think we should cull the Sources section, or determine what in the article is referencing the listed sources and cite it appropriately. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Further reading 

message: This view was expressed in his later book The Historical Novel, as well as in his 1938 essay "Realism in the Balance".
70.42.240.6 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  .  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014 

message: I've noticed that some of what is included in this section is almost verbatim taken from the New World Encyclopedia about Lukacs. This is problematic, at the very least because it verges on plagiarism. This needs to be re-written, incorporating more sources (like from Lichtheim's book on Lukacs, for instance). Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better written 'Life" section 

message: On the page, under "Under Stalin and Rákosi", it says that he only came into contact with the writings of the Young Marx in 1933 - however, no direct reference to this is made on the SEP page referenced, and Lukacs directly references Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" (1843-44, considered part of his 'Young', Hegelian epoch) in his essay "Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat" in 1923. Is this a mistake - can anyone with more knowledge about what Lukacs read, and when, please take a look at this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.129 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Marx 

message: Is there any truth in the rumour he used the name George Lucas when writing in English?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nom de plume? 

message: Of what social-economic class did Lukács consider himself to be a member?173.61.95.154 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep It Classy

message: The large section that is tagged as unsourced appears to just be an editor's direct synopsis/paraphrase of the work. The length is a bit excessive in this article. Would anyone object to moving it to the article Realism in the Balance? Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realism in the Balance