Talk:Mátyás Rákosi

message: 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)
thread_title: "Repudiated" not just religion, but Judaism too

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citation for birth last name

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Appeasing Tito? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: 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#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  John Gunther's opinion