Talk:Ágnes Heller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I think that Ágnes Heller has gradually changed from zionist to Marxist(not so much communist) to a liberal, humane leftist. Her later postmodern weltanschaung doesn't allow for a political stance, I suppose. I also think she is one of the greatest woman minds of our time.(Koskoci (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Agnesspeaks.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Agnesspeaks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


29 January 2011 Someone recently added the following information: "In 2011, Heller was investigated by police in connection with alleged financial fraud in the Philosophy Department of the Academy of Hungarian Science" I deleted this, because it is incorrect in a number of respects. Heller is not being investigated. A project that she was involved in was forwarded to the police on the basis of suspicion against an unknown perpetrator. It is not known whether the suspicion had a proper basis. To include this sentence at this stage in the article is simply defamatory. Plus, there is no Philosophy Department at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. There is an Institute of Philosophy. Heller doesn't have any connection to this Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit18 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


The last half of this article is ridiculously biased towards the Fidesz Party. The defence of Viktor Orban is flimsy: there is no mention of his introduction of press censorship in 2010, the fact that he stepped down in 2002 is not much proof that he is a democrat (and when stepping down he said, "I am not in opposition because Hungary is never in opposition" and went to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the elected government); there is no mention of the anti-semitism within Fidesz. The narrative of Heller's activities is often factually distorted in ways that are designed to make Heller look bad and Fidesz look good. For example, I have just heard Heller speak at the University of Paris and, contrary to what this article says, she acknowledged the Socialists' responsibility in repressing the 2006 riots. The case brought against her by the government is presented at face value here, whereas the European Union is treating it as harassment of a political dissident. The article's tone is also polemical and tendentious. I'm not the right person to rewrite this article, but clearly somebody needs to do so. As it stands, the last half of it is simply a smear job by Fidesz against one of its most outspoken critics. Clearly Heller is a controversial person and her battles with Hungarian Right are complicated, but they should be described with more objectivity than is done here. Shenigha (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Stephen Henighan

Could you please elaborate in the cenzorship thing? I live in Hungary and I haven't noticed anything of it. -- (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You have only to compare the news issued by MTI (Hungarian state news agency) these days to the non-Hungarian sources for the same news. It is crystal clear that MTI is already voluntarily censoring (and sometimes rewriting) the 'news'. As all government media organisations (and many others) use MTI bulletins uncritically, this means that the bulk of the 'news' reaching Hungarians in Hungary is already being censored - even before the new media law really starts to be used. I am sure this situation will get a lot worse once Orbán steps down as EU President in July and Hungary once again slips into obscurity.
As for the main article, I knew nothing of Ágnes Heller before reading it (having found the article by accident during a Google search), but it is clearly written in a very subjective style, and is very far from the standard Wikipedia normally tries to promote. And it isn't just the last half of the article, right at the beginning we have this strange statement: "and her father, Pal Heller, was never able to stay with a single job for very long". No sources are given for this, so it appears to be just the opinion of the author. Also, it is not only verging on the slanderous (offering an opinion as to why he changed jobs often, rather than just saying he did), but really doesn't have any relevance to the rest of the article or to Ágnes Heller.
I've read many articles in Wikipedia where the author's objectivity is doubted and these articles always have a box on the first page pointing this out, I don't understand why this article hasn't got the same warning. Does anyone know how you contact someone at Wikipedia to bring this issue to their attention?
(I am unable to sign this, as I don't know how to!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Recent additions to the article have included sections in parentheses containing satirical commentary about matters such as teleportation, philosophers lodging in the YMCA, et cetera. These aspects are not mentioned in the sources and thus do not belong in the article. There is still scope to make the article more neutral, and discussing ways to do that here would be sensible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP policy[edit]

what is needed is some balance in the writing. I'll give it a try over the next few days. In the meantime, I've done a little copyediting, asked for some cites, and removed some clearly irrelevant material. I remind everyone concerned that according to our Biography of living persons policy all unsourced or poorly sourced negative or contentious material must be removed, and not reinserted unless a good source is available. Facebook and personal blogs do not count, and cannot be used--material supported only by them will be removed unless there are good references available. We do not leave such material in waiting for sourcing, & I shall be removing it. This is something that must be enforced, by block if necessary, and so I will, if I need to. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That's definitely the way to do things. I'll be selling popcorn.
The controversial events and claims, per WP:WEIGHT, really only need occupy a very small part of the article - perhaps two or three paragraphs at the most. So I would like to see the people who have strong views on the controversy, actually discuss their suggested "neutral" versions here, so that we can get some discussion about it. Reverting back and forth every week or two doesn't get things fixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the people with strong views on the controversy would realize that a neutral version might be better written by someoneneutral. What they can best do to help, is by suggesting key references from reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be even better, but at the moment they don't seem to want to talk here at all mostly don't seem to want to talk here at all... so anything would be an improvement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted part[edit]

I deleted the following:

The charges against the philosophers are subsequently being dropped, one after the other,[1] but this has not diminished the ongoing campaign in the government-supported press and other media.[2]

FALSE INFO!!! She and her companions are still under police investigation! By the way, she is not accused yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talkcontribs) 09:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not even now: 2 May, 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The deleted part is now, at least partly true: the charges against one of the philosophers have silently been dropped, [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Now it is fully true: all charges against the philosophers (including Heller) have been dropped. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision and restoration of deletions about subsequent developments[edit]

Revised version:

"The only allegations that have since been tested in court -- in the form of lawsuits against the press for false statements and accusations -- have been decided in the accused philosophers' favour [3]. The ongoing accusations in the government-supported press and other media have since been fading away, but there has not yet been a press admission that they were false, nor a government announcement that the investigation is over or the charges have been dropped.[4]"
The prior wording had been ambiguous because although the press accusations were based on the government charges, it was not the government charges that were tested in court, but the press's statements of them as being true rather than merely alleged. The current wording now reflects the developments clearly and literally: It is the press's accusations that were tested in court and found to be unwarranted. It also remains true that the government's charges have not been officially dropped; it is not clear whether they are still being pursued at all.
Topic-neutrality requires that these subsequent developments be recorded too, rather than just stating that accusations have been made and are being investigated. Stevan Harnad 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Supplementary information on neutrality of viewpoint: Please see [[3]] and User:Ltbuni's other edits on Roma in Hungary: [[4]]. User:Ltbuni is clearly not a great admirer of the Roma people (Gypsies) who are currently not just under a campaign of vilification by the right-wing Hungarian press, but the victims of extreme right vigilantism. See: Vigilantism in Gyongyospata. (Other [[5]] of User:Ltbuni. Stevan Harnad 13:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently User:Ltbuni is not a great admirer of Agnes Heller and her co-accusees either. Stevan Harnad 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talkcontribs)
  • Ltbuni is not a great admirer of Agnes Heller and her co-accusees either?

1. In the hungarian criminal procedure the first phase is the investigation, then comes the "trial".Please check this and this: In the first phase, there are no accused persons!! Nor co-accusees !! They are called: suspects! In the case of Heller and her friends, it's the first phase: police or prosecutor's investigation! According to my latest information, there were no charges yet, but the investigation is on its way. So "co-accusees", "dropping charges" and other expressions are simply not accurate, though bombastic! That's why I decided to change that part, and not because of my sympathy or antipathy towards Heller's friends.

2. Nevertheless it was the only place, where I refered to her friends, so how could you state that I am not a great admirer of her fellows? For example I like Steiger Kornél and Borbély Gábor pretty much. And my favourite periodical (Ókor) was partly sponsored with the questioned money.

  • Ltbuni in not admirer of Agnes Heller?

I admire her, but I appreciate more the truth! As far as I can remember, I haven't deleted anything concerning her scientific works/ideas/her sufferings etc. What is more, it was me, who added her campaign for a female quota, and updated her list of works. I accept that she is a great philosopher. But it seems, that she is doing and she did questionable things during her career: no one was shot, no one was tortured?. And what about the letter she wrote to the MSZMP, and her recent reaction to it? I admire her scientific works, but unfortunately this is the other side of her career! What should have I done? Just forget her recent public activity? A wiki-article must be as complete as possible. What would have you done? Feel free to remove/correct anything.

  • Ltbuni is not admirer of the gipsies?

That's the question of balance here again. I haven't found any articles showing the efforts of the non-gipsies to promote the life of the "cigányok". All I found was an article presenting political discrimination against romas in Hungary, which only presented data concerning their education. As I wrote it on the discussion page of the Roma in Hungary, it's really annoying that after I spent 3 years of my life helping them, I found such an unbalanced article like that. That's why I added some insight into the hungarian political representation of the romas (Viktória Mohácsi, Járóka Lívia) in the same article. Unfortunatelly, It's not my fault, that Mr Kolompar and his friends, were put on trial. On the latest research trends on the criminals, with gipsy origins, please click here Please, note that these articles are not written by right-wing Hungarian vilificator journalists.

Sincerelly Yours--Ltbuni (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Hungarian Academicians Blast Government Over Inquiry Into Research Funds" American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ScienceInsider 4 February 2011
  2. ^ "Hagyják abba a filozófusok rágalmazását!" ("End the Smear Campaign Against the Philosophers")
  3. ^ "Hungarian Academicians Blast Government Over Inquiry Into Research Funds" American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ScienceInsider 4 February 2011
  4. ^ "Hagyják abba a filozófusok rágalmazását!" ("End the Smear Campaign Against the Philosophers")