Talk:Őszöd speech

message: 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)
thread_title:  On the Neutrality of the Article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Translation is not the translation of words

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it should be moved. Dsol 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikisource 

message: 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)
replies: text: You're simply trolling now. Tim! 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: There are two most important and the most criticised parts of the speech but aren't in the article:
# Nincsen sok választás. Azért nincsen, mert elkúrtuk. Nem kicsit, nagyon. Európában ilyen böszmeséget még ország nem csinált, mint amit mi csináltunk.
## ~~ 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. 
# 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.
## ~~ 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.
# És közben egyébként nem csináltunk semmit négy évig. Semmit.
## Otherwise we haven't done anything for four years. anything. 
Bacground of criticism:
# Gyurcsány admitted that they missed, and they missed governing. They done it wrong. I think no comment needed for this.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Where are the most important expressions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality + unsourced tags stay 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intercultural difference 

message: I have removed the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed copy to Wikisource 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Willful Distortion