Talk:Milan Kundera

I deleted this line in reference to Lightness: although the writer himself thinks of it as his worst. There's no source, and it's not true. Zafiroblue05 06:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

(Revert - no source. I've never heard that - I'm pretty sure he only joined twice... can you get a source?)

Regarding your last revert. I agree with you, Milan Kundera joined the communist party only twice: once in 1948. Then he got rejected in 1950 and joined again from 1955 to 1970. I have never heard of him joining for a 3rd time. when would he have done such a thing anyways? in 1968, after the soviet got in, his works were taken off the shelves and his "teacher permit" revoked... I, too, would love to check out the source of that edit.--Angelikmeg 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• The edit was made by User:Ross.Hedvicek, who appears to be Czech - this is interesting... But, at anyrate, I think he's at best misinformed. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it's very interesting... I didn't know one could also organized a Wiki-coup! It's so wikid :-). As for the edit, you might be right, it could be that he was misinformed, it's just that I kinda doubt it: he sounded so sure of himself. We'll see what his next move/edit/answer will be. Cheers. Angelikmeg 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am absoltutely sure of it, the fact is frequently mentioned in Czech-language sources, seems that he re-joined for the third time around 1972-73, after Husak's so called political "normalization" took over in Czechoslovakia. I remember reading about it in Czech communist newspaper at that time after his escape to France in 1975 that "he was given a deal o trust by the Party and he betrayed!" (Which is of course commie PoV). So put it back please - it is just historical fact. Ross.Hedvicek 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in order to join for a 3rd time, he would have had to leave the party for a 2nd time in the 1st place, and that my friend is a fact that has yet to be proved.

Read the current file: "In 1970, he was expelled from the Party for the second time." That is leaving! For the second time he was kicked out during the process called "proverky" after April 16, 1969, when new GenSec Gustav Husak ordered all party members who were not enough "pro-Soviet" during the Prague Spring expelled from the Party. Are you familiar with that part of history at all? Ross.Hedvicek 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You have to cite the exact source, even if it's in Czech-language, we could have it translated to verify its accuracy and legitimacy on such claim, but just because you remembered something you read somewhere doesn't make it historical fact. Well I should say: it's only historical fact for you on a personal level. Also you have to admit that a partisan newspaper is not always a "good" source especially at times when propaganda was overused and one of its members fled the country and the party's ruling. You just can't take their word for it. Even if we assume that the communist newspapers were right - in a country where at that time anything said by the most powerful party was to be the truth, whether it was the truth or not-, it has to be backed by another external (non-Czech) source. The fact that Czech newspapers claimed to the Czech people that Kundera betrayed the party doesn't make it true, they claimed so many things to be true.... Anyways, bottom line is name your source, let us verify it, discuss it, and if it's true and well documented, the comment will be back on and you'll be the most happy wikipedian ever. Cheers --Angelikmeg 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing it - leave it as you wish. I noticed here on Wikipedia too many times that youths with leftist agenda are twisting the history so it would match their view of the world. I am old guy, I remember those things first hand, I did not learn about that from some marxist profs. Kundera joined Communists AT LEAST TWICE (verified by you), therefore I can not have any respect for the guy and he is not worth my time. I am not willing to argue about it. It is your future - I will not be in it. Thanks for your time. Ross.Hedvicek 03:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, there is no need to get all fired up. First of all, you should have left my reply as it was. You have no right to edit what I said or didn't say, you can edit any article on wikipedia, but not users' opinions on a talk page. So if there is anyone here twisting anything, it ain't me: that's you. Second, this is not about you or me or anyone else: it's about an article on a famous author in an encyclopedia, just like any other celebrity we're trying to write an article on. If you didn't get that yet, wake up 'cause it's time to smell the coffee!

• and if that man happened to be communist, so what? he could have been worse, just imagine for one moment: he could have been a very angry, bitter old man who cannot take a critic or a comment without jumping on his horses and play the offended wise man giving a lecture to someone he does NOT know at all and making judgements about that person! So please, if you cannot take a critic, don't contribute, don't write, keep your thoughts to yourself, leave wikipedia, create your own if you want, do as you please. But if you are really open for discussion, then by all means Mr. "old guy", write your stuff but document it on your own', and not by editing comments of somebody's else on a talk page. That is so petty and so small! --Angelikmeg 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is no need to get all fired up - then why do you get fired up? I give up, no more interference from me. You just scared off one more potential contributor of Wikipedia - is that your goal in life? Bye. Ross.Hedvicek 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To make it extremely clear to you, what I was trying to make you understand is this: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community." Please remember the rule. It's time for you to get back to the article and cite sources whenever you want to add to it. No need to leave any more comments because I will not respond anymore. I'm way above this. End of discussion --Angelikmeg 20:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with Angelikmeg. There is no need for you to leave Wikipedia, but it's time to adhere to the generally accepted rules, such as not removing parts of discussions, providing source of information, esp. in case of some arguable matters, avoiding POV comments in articles and avoiding personal attacks.

If you prove that Kundera joined for the 3rd time, the information can be included. If you are not able to provide a reliable source, it should not be included. --Sebesta 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue shouldn't have exploded like this! It's very simple - if there's a source, we include it, if there's not a source, we don't. I've read a fair bit of Kundera's work (fiction and non-fiction) and work about Kundera, and I've always heard that he only joined (and left) the Communist Party twice - and after The Joke and the Prague Spring, I find it unlikely he would have been accepted back in. He may well have joined a third time, but I've never heard that. As it happens, I am as far from a youth with a leftist agenda as you can get, and Milan Kundera is as well - but these facts are trivial when we're making an encyclopedia. Ross - come up with a reputable, verifiable source (not the communists!) (English, French, Czech, Guarani - whatever language, it doesn't matter), and we'll put it in - it's that simple. It'd be a real shame if someone left Wikipedia over a dispute so trivial, where everyone is striving for the same thing - to report the truth. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand the general rules about supporting any claims with sources, but I do not want to be involved in any heated arguing. I definitely feel what Angelikmeg did was a personal attack on me, and I am not going to be involved in anything like that. And her comment "and if that man happened to be communist, so what? he could have been worse" is highly offensive to me. The lady clearly do not have a sufficient grasp of history and circumstances. No, thank you. Write your version of history - if you please. Ross.Hedvicek 02:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the "he could have been worse" thing was inappropriate. But I think that you as well shouldn't be accusing others of ignorance (how do you know she doesn't have a "sufficient grasp of history and circumstances"?). When you say "I remember those things first hand" - I suspect that what you and others around you accepted things as fact based on untrustworthy sources (viz., the communist party). It may have been common knowledge at the time - but that doesn't mean it's true. In fact, because you or others have been unable to come up with sources that say it's true, I think it's very harsh - by which I mean, incorrect and in bad faith - to say that we "write (our) own version of history" when we say that Kundera only joined the Party twice. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing it anymore, it does not matter to me that much, by adding it I was just trying to be helpful. I was trying to find some "verifiable source" on that and nothing. I was just living in the same city (Brno) at that time, meeting the guy casually (we were no close friends) and this was a common knowledge about him at that time. I guess this is equivalent as when David Irving [[1]] is saying that Holocaust never happened. He has a lot of paper, from which he can quote (=verifiable), regardless that the whole world knows it is a crap. Then - if Irving were Wiki-sysop and have a strong hand here - according to Wiki, Holocaust would be disputed here, too. History cannot be writen by consensus of opinions - it either happened or not. :-) In any case - thank you for you kind words. Ross.Hedvicek 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See Godwin's Law or Reductio ad Hitlerum. David Irving filed a libel suit in England, where the defendant has the burden of proof, and lost. The following was found to be "substantially true" by the judge: Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. Frankly, I find your analogy deeply offensive. Distorting factual truths to support your own viewpoint is nothing at all like rejecting an unsourced statement. Maybe you met Kundera casually - maybe you didn't. You're just a name on a computer screen to me; you could be one of your leftist youths, for all I know. Events in the past only happened or not, but history - written history, which is the only kind that exists - is based on verifiable claims. And yes, on consensus of opinions. But here's the rub - some opinions are more trustworthy than others. And I am much more likely to trust a written document - in any language - than a unknown person's word. Sorry. At any rate, Kundera may well have joined a third time. I don't really know, but I'd like to. And if you don't want to push it, that's fine. Perhaps someone else will in the future. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I think it is a good idea. Ross.Hedvicek 12:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for an essay like that. See Wikipedia:No original research. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about a link to it? It is still good piece of information, methinks... Ross.Hedvicek 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Link, yes. Merge, no. Too involved for the reader like myself seeking a quick bio on Kundera.

French

i think kundera translate his own novels into french, or does he write in french? would that not be worth mentioning? i have a german edition of wotsit "slowness" ? that says the original edition was in french. trueblood 20:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Slowness, I believe, was the first book he wrote originally in French. Before that (if Slowness was actually the one), he wrote in Czech and then translated to French, even if the first publication was in Czech. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• “About the Author” page (in: Kundera, Milan. Ignorance. Perennial, USA. 2000) says that The Joke, Life is Elsewhere, Farewell Waltz, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and Immortality, and the short-story collection Laughable Lovers where originally written in Czech. It also says, “His most recent novels, Slowness, identity and Ignorance, as well as his non-fiction works, The Art of the Novel and Testaments Betrayed, were originally written in French”--Damm10 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

czech

why does he refuse to have his book published in czech? --84.30.90.199 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the Czech language, I think this article needs a discussion of Kundera's essaying upon the concept of "litost"; if I thought I were up to the job, I would do it. GrammarGeek 08:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)