Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hungarian Revolution of 1956

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

Hungarian Revolution of 1956[edit]

October 23 will mark the 50th anniversary of one of the bravest acts of the 20th century - when Hungary rose up to free itself from Soviet occupation. The article has recently been greatly improved; it was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive feature, was peer reviewed by WP:MilHist (the rating predates its revisions), and is now undergoing general peer review. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is now a thoroughly-referenced and organised work we feel worthy of FA status. Those who have worked hard to improve this article warmly invite you to browse it, make improvements and leave comments which will be attended to quickly. Istvan 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The first sentence makes me wonder if this is NPOV. Communist dictatorship?, the hated State Police? These are quite POV words... - Tutmosis 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Grrr, this article doesn't seem stable. I posted the above 2 seconds after it was changed. - Tutmosis 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope more changes are coming because the article uses a lot of strong words: hated, destroy, repressio creating explosive discontent. Statements like this with no source: "Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps or were executed, including ÁVH founder László Rajk.". Definetely needs some neutral eye to copyedit it. I've only begun reading the article too. - Tutmosis 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This language is referenced from decidedly neutral sources, e.g. the UN report of 1957. The text has been adjusted to remove unreferenced assertions.Istvan 05:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
And another thing...THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. We must use "strong words" to refer to terrible times. K. Lastochka 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • strong support I proudly support this article for FA. It has vastly improved from where it was a month or so ago and is now a clear, well-written and informative article. I verify that I have been actively involved in the editing process for the last few weeks, ever since it was put up for AID. Talpra magyar, hí a haza! K. Lastochka 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support - it has become great filled with pictures and references, I think it is an aarticle that Wikipedia can be proud of (being the #1 hit on Google for the Revolution), also I feel that the POV issues have been worked out even with such a great emotional involvement (that I can't condemn) of some of the editors --Dami 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I am curious about the images copyrighted to the American Hungarian Federation. How is it that these photos, which were taken during the uprising, came under the ownership of the AHF? And where is it written that they may be re-used for any purpose? Andrew Levine 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, please pardon my lack of legal expertise but here goes - the AHF homepage [1] notes: "The American Hungarian Federation is sponsoring the 1956 Portal to provide a resource for Hungarian American organizations across the nation to highlight and promote their 1956 Hungarian Revolution commemoration activities. The 1956 Portal serves as a central information resource for 1956 as our community prepares for this important milestone." There is intent but not restriction, and the photo page lists the copyrights as belonging to the AHF (2005) and the various sources (1956 Institute, a couple of private contributors) so there is a path leading from the original owners through the AHF who is sponsoring the media for public use. Istvan 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I just spoke with someone at the National Headquarters of the American Hungarian Foundation who assured me that all images they are using on their "1956 Hungarian Revolution Portal" are either public domain or are images where permission has been given for reuse with correct attribution. However, he was at a loss as to how I might prove that to anyone else. He said there is a board meeting tonight, and the subject will be brought up to see what documentation can be provided. I guess we have to wait a few days to find out.--Paul 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, good work! I never thought to get any of the AHF people on the phone. :) K. Lastochka 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support—it's a well-written article that covers not only the what but also the why. It gives good references to the reader and is generally a good source of information for anybody. chery 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Although I'd like to support this, I think it's being presented in a somewhat sensationalized, but certainly POV fashion. With this issue, it should be easy enough for readers to make up their own minds about right and wrong without being "hit over the head" by an encyclopedia entry. As it stands, I won't support or object. -- TheMightyQuill 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Mighty Quill, can you please give us some examples of how exactly we're being "sensational" and POV? K. Lastochka 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- I think the POV comments have been cleaned up nicely. Thanks everyone. Though maybe you could track down a better picture of Kadar? TheMightyQuill 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- This article is comprehensive without excessive detail, contains good use of both period references (including translations of source material) and more recent works, is sparingly illustrated with topical images, is well wiki-linked, and adds a tone to the narrative that is appropriate to the events described, but avoiding a POV attitude that might obscure the facts. A reviewer here would be well-served by reading some of the references linked to this article to answer whether the writing is balanced and fair. Ryanjo 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment / Support I believe I can be persuaded to support this article for FA, but currently, its claims are not sufficiently referenced. I have started going through the article placing "citation needed" tags at obvious places, as well as a few comments where greater clarity is needed. With work, this can be FA quality, but I don't believe it is there yet. I'll help as I have the time. When the "citation needed" tags are worked out, I'll reevalute my support.--Paul 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Article has doubled the number of cites since my original comment was posted, and currently - as far as I can tell - makes no claims that are not backed up with a reference. It is well-written, comprehensive, verifiable, factually accurate, and after considerable recent effort, it is neutral - perhaps to the point of anemia. It conforms to WP:MOS, it has a concise series of headings, it has appropriate pictures (but I'd support it without those), and the current editors now swear they are done improving it so it will be stable (it has never been afflicted with reversion wars). It borders on being a little too long, but with its content and extensive footnotes, it is undoubtedly the very best on-line refernce to this event, and anyone who studies the article will learn a great deal. I must confess that I have been active in editing the article since it was selected for Article Improvement a scant three weeks ago.--Paul 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the POV is just too strong, and the variety of views about the topic are not really represented. There are also a number of "citation needed" markers, but that is very much secondary. Everyking 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyking, remarking on the "citation needed" markers isn't really fair, as I added those just now, as part of my comment on current quality. I am certain that editors will clean up the needed references in a day or two. Regarding "variety of views about the topic not being really represented," can you give an example or two to help? Thanks.--Paul 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the "citation needed" markers have been cleaned up.--Paul 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above. too much pov: "Hungary became a communist state under the dictatorship of Mátyás Rákosi.", "Spark and ignition". Also writing not good at all- "Hungary was dependent on the Soviet Union through the COMECON" (please elaborate), "mood changed from demonstration to protest", "Repeated calls for Imre Nagy eventually summoned the former minister" - get someone to copyedit--ppm 04:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Spark and ignition" is gone; plus all of these: "Hungary was dependent on the Soviet Union through the COMECON", "mood changed from demonstration to protest", "Repeated calls for Imre Nagy eventually summoned the former minister" have been removed or rewritten.--Paul 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here? Rákosi WAS a dictator, can't we call his regime a dictatorship without being slapped as POV?? Do we HAVE to tell the story of our desparate cry for freedom in a dry, bland, politically-correct academic style? The streets of Budapest were red with blood in 56, why can blood not flow through the veins of this article? K. Lastochka 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The content of your article should make it easy for the reader do deduct that he was a dictator. Perfectly fine would be sentences like "The US news in a report in 19XX referred to him as a petty tyrant". Just don't go and declare him as a dictator. that IS pov.--ppm 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse me for being slightly incredulous, but the point is still confusing. Would labeling Franco, Stalin, or Hitler as dictators also be inadmissible Point-Of-View? If so, someone has some serious editing to do. If not, what's the difference?--Paul 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is little doubt that Rákosi was a dictator. U.S News & World Report calls him a "Little Stalin" and a "petty tyrant." The Wikipedia article on him states: "At this point, Rákosi dropped all pretense of democratic government, and Hungary became an outright Communist dictatorship." Given an hour or two in a good library, I could provide a stack of references agreeing with this assessment. Stalin was a dictator, Franco was a dictator, and Rákosi was a dictator. It is not a POV to state the truth. There may be some POV statements in this article that cannot be backed up with strong references, but this is not one of them. Secondly, how does "Spark and ignition" qualify as POV? The state police fired into an unarmed crowd and things got out of hand. If that isn't a spark and ignition, what is it? Would you please suggest an alternative non-POV wording?--Paul 05:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The dictator question is one of the finer points of NPOV semantics; the neutrality issue goes much deeper than that. Where is the other side of the story? I personally think Rakosi was a dictator, and while I'd rather not use the word I can live with it; the bigger problem is the general hostile approach and the narrow perspective that's being used. Everyking 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Everyking, can you give an example of what you mean by "other side of the story?" As another editor points out, there is an extensive documented section detailing Soviet concerns in the affair including the following:

*Hungarian neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact represented a threat to the Soviet defensive and ideological buffer zone of satellite nations.[1] Soviet international relations in central Europe were not only dictated by a desire for empire, but by a fear of invasion from the West. These fears were deeply ingrained in Soviet foreign policy, reaching back to the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War in the 1920s. However, it was the Operation Barbarossa in 1941, when the Hungarian state was an ally during the German invasion of the Soviet Union, that cemented the Soviet concept of a necessary defensive buffer of allied states in central Europe.

-Paul 00:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it necessary to use the word "dictator" here in order to get across the meaning? It is better, and much more descriptive, to say (as the article does) "The Security Police (ÁVH) began a series of purges in which dissidents were denounced as 'Titoists' or 'western agents', and forced to confess in show trials. Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps or were executed, including ÁVH founder László Rajk." That gets across the idea much better than calling his rule a "dictatorship," which is an overused and not-very-descriptive term. Andrew Levine 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - with a lot of work the article has become great, it meets FA criteria. Congrat! NCurse work 05:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: POV/NPOV is valid concern especially in an article about a revolution; I would invite you to read the references and entertain the possibility that this language, which is almost always POV, is in fact spot-on accurate for Hungary in 1956. Please see the Talk page for an elaboration. Thank you for your attention and honest evaluations. Istvan 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - support as long as the citation needed tags are replaced with references. The article is comprehensive, well-formatted, well-structured and gives a good snapshot of the event. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 06:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the "citation needed" markers have been cleaned up.--Paul 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Support :) Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The tone fits the topic. This article is about a revolution, not a species of bacteria.
    • An editor changed "hated" secret police to "thoroughly-despised". I don't think the language is as precise, but its softer, so maybe politically correct.
    • It was suggested to change "dictatorship" to "regime". Is that how our encyclopedia defines a non-elected oligarchy with internal concentration camps? Is the reader of this article informed by that imprecise terminology?
    • The other side of the story is there: one of the largest subsections of the article (Soviet political response) details the internal debate and motivation of the Soviet Politburo, with references to primary sources.
    • If the facts are wrong, let's fix them. But let's end up with a precise and truthful description. Ryanjo 11:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support, would be nice to get it featured before the anniversary. – Alensha talk 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support, pretty comprehensive, referenced on the requested places, tone is fine, deserves to be featured. - Serinde 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • More comments the article has the material and overall organization for an FA, but some real cleanup is necessary. The word Hungay doesn't appear until the 2nd para, and then it's not wikilinked. Towards the end of lead "animosities still burn unresolved." why this burning imagery? "animosities still remain unresolved" is much more encyclopedic. Serious copyedit needed.--ppm 18:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: The opening paragraphs have been rewritten to include Hungary in the first sentence (wikified). The burning imagery is gone, and the reference to dictatorship has been removed.--Paul 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey shoot me down if I'm wrong, but don't featured articles have to have rationales for the images? I didn't see any.--Clyde Miller 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefuly I'm not misleading you or mistaken, but if you read above you see that they claim the pictures are public domain (I think we have done our due dilignece on our part), plus it is believed (acompanying the abovementioned phonecall) that this gives us permission: (highligting by me)
The American Hungarian Federation is sponsoring the 1956 Portal to provide a resource for Hungarian American organizations across the nation to highlight and promote their 1956 Hungarian Revolution commemoration activities.
--Dami 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that the very title of the article is misleading. This was more of an "attempted revolution" as "revolutions" tend to be successful, don't they? Then again, I'm not a historian, I'm a scientist. Still, I'd like to see a different title. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    This event has always been called either “revolution” or “counterrevolution”, but never “attempted revolution”. It would be nonsense to give it an other name. chery 20:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Common parlance is "Revolution." "1956 Hungarian Revolution" returns 80,000+ Google hits. "1956 Hungarian Uprising" returns 16,000+, while "1956 Hungarian Revolt" returns 720 hits. "Revolution" may not be the best word, but it is the one in common use.--Paul 20:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All the references for the article call this event either Hungarian Revolution or Revolt. Ryanjo 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Revolt" as a term seems more in-line with what actually happened. I understand that it is our duty to be verifiable and that we just report what others say, but given the overly postivistic claims of the nominator and other supporters of the FAC toward this event, I am hesitant to say that the title is the best that Wikipedia can do given its WP:NPOV. After all, the Philippine-American War is not called the Philippine Revolution of 1899-1913. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Philippine-American War" is the common name of the event. The "Philippine Revolution" is rare. "1956 Hungarian Revolt" is quite uncommon, while "1956 Hungarian Revolution" is the common usage. It isn't up to us to blaze new scholarly naming conventions. After all, the English horn, is neither English, nor a horn, but the Wikipedia entry goes along with the common usage, and unfortunately that is what is needed here also.--Paul 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope, sorry, not buying it. Hungarian Uprising gets 500,000 hits on google while Hungarian Revolution gets 3 million and change. That's not enough to convince me that Hungarian Revolution is that much more popular to contravene WP:NPOV concerns. I doubt there are people who want to get into controversial arguments over English horns (though I have been surprised in the past), but I'm willing to wager that there are historians out there who would not agree that calling this the "Hungarian Revolution" is neutral. --ScienceApologist 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This may help throw light on the issue - There have been at least three major revolutions/uprisings/revolts/insurrections in Hungarian history (incl. 1848) - you must add "1956" to your Google search to glean out hits from this one only. And you are right that there are indeed historians who use the term uprising, David Irving is one, but this is clearly the minority. "Revolution" is English convention and is also direct translation from the Hungarian convention.Istvan 00:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It does help. But why is discussion of this not in the article? It would have helped explain why the article is titled the way it is. Remember, we report at Wikipedia, so let's report the name of the event with appropriate citations. --ScienceApologist 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please enlighten me as to how exactly the word "revolution" is POV? If you want to be incredibly fussy I suppose "uprising" is a bit more accurate, but how on Earth is the word "revolution" biased towards one POV??? K. Lastochka 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term "revolution" has a lot of connotations. In particular, its etymological roots imply that there is some sort of change ("revolving") that happened as a result of the revolution. In this case, it doesn't seem like "change" occurred in the sense that the people who were leading the "revolution" would have liked. What's more, there is a sense to the term "revolution" that carries connotations of "success". That's where we are treading a narrow POV line. The Hungarian Revolution might hardly be called successful in most superficial analyses. However, there are perspectives where we might say it was successful (or maybe a harbinger of future success). However, this is only one perspective and my feeling is by naming the article "revolution" you are (perhaps unwittingly) endorsing this perspective. --ScienceApologist 00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I grant you that it might be somewhat inaccurate. But believe me, we KNOW the "revolution" was not successful. But is slight inaccuracy "POV"? It is my understanding that on Wikipedia, POV means an unfair bias towards one perspective/opinion. If we called the article "Glorious Uprising of Fearless Hungarian Freedom Fighters against Bloodthirsty Soviet Tyrants, 1956" THAT would be POV. "Revolution" vs. "Uprising" is just splitting irrelevant hairs. K. Lastochka 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The event was a revolution, in that it's goals were revolutionary. It did intend a clean break with the zeitgeist. It is both unfortunate and true that it was short-lived, but it seemed successful on October 28th, and its short duration doesn't make it any less a revolution. Unfortunately, the other choices don't solve the supposed POV problem. "Uprising" can be just as POV, possibly implying an illegal rebellion against legitimate authority. “Revolt” is similarly weighted down with unfortunate connotations. In this case, where any of the alternatives can be just as plausibly be described as “POV,” don't you think the best course is to go with common usage? POV is much more suspect when you depart from the norm.--Paul 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"unfortunate connotations" indeed..."Comrade General! The Hungarians are revolting!" :) LOL....anyways, in all seriousness, I agree. Revolution is just as good--or better--as anything. K. Lastochka 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, I've got a solution...we can still call it a revolution--it's just that we'll be referring to the overthrow of the Nagy government by Janos Kadar in November! His government lasted until 1989. OK, everyone is happy now? Next comment? Ryanjo 01:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I will support this nomination if we include some explanation of why it's called such a thing in the text. --ScienceApologist 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear S.A. - Please see the recent inclusion of explanation for the term "revolution" (referenced) I believe it is now a better page. Istvan 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate the reference, I'm not sure that this totally resolves the issue. Princeton University WordNet is an interesting source, but since there are other terms that describe this event, we should explain WHY it is generally considered a "revolution" while other "uprisings" (e.g. Warsaw Ghetto in WWII) are not. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear S.A. - Please see the revised note and identification in the text "Revolt turned to Revolution" passage to identify the precise moment at which the uprising became a revolution, albeit short-lived. WordNet was chosen as it powers Websters online (and OED online is a pay site). I hope this clears the issue for you.Istvan 07:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I checked the reviesed note and identification in the text. Unfortunately I still think the issue remains. What is stated in the text is that the "revolt turned into a revolution", but this is a really artificial demarcation. The citation for this point was to a UN document that stated that there were "Revolutionary committees" which could be taken to mean that the Hungarians believed they were going through a revolution. However, the article isn't written in this way: it is states as bald fact that the revolt became a revolution without nuance or the critical eye of historicity. I find this kind of treatment to be really shoddy. What you can do to improve this is explain, using sources, why the Hungarians and historians who called it a revolution called it a revolution even though it had traits that were different from other events that are called "revolutions" while it shares similarities to events that are not called revolutions (in particular, focusing on the fact that this revolution was unsuccessful). I cannot find another event that was so "short-lived" that was called a "revolution". Most "revolutions" last longer than a few months. Perhaps you can point me to some? --ScienceApologist 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please recheck the reference, which is precisely to page 22, paragraph 65 of the UN document; it records the point that the Government fell - as Hegedũs and Gerõ fled the country and makes no mention of revolutionary committees. This is revolution by definition, therefore historians may not be prevented from using the term revolution. Istvan 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the goverment fell, but that's not the definition of a revolution otherwise a coup d'etat would be a type of revolution. --ScienceApologist 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Er...isn't it? We're not worrying about the incredibly precise academic definition of the word, we named the article according to common accepted parlance. NEXT ISSUE?K. Lastochka 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • As would "putsch" - The difference is one of cause: "revolution" is effected by an uprising of the many, whereas "coup d'etat" and "putsch" allow (even imply) government change by the actions of a few. I believe it should be clear that, by both strict definition and common usage, the 1956 event may be correctly labeled a "revolution". (and remember - even its opponents were quick to label it "counterrevolution".)

Sounds good to me. So why isn't this discussed in the article? --ScienceApologist 23:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, I'll guess. Because it isn't an article about the definition of "Revolution"?--Paul 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If we used nonstandard reference to the event (e.g. "uprising") then an explicit defense of this would certainly be required in the text. As it stands, the footnote (currently #3) summarises the above exchange (rewritten to include the other points you have raised) and is tagged to the first use of "Revolution". Istvan 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose having it in the footnote is better than not having it at all. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of including this. I might, however, suggest than instead of relegating this to a footnote, you find a way to incorporate the information in the article. Then you won't need to footnote the article title! As such, I no longer object to this article being featured. --ScienceApologist 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can everybody accusing us of POV kindly provide EXAMPLES of our so-called bias, not just accusations?! K. Lastochka 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support KL on that: I do think that oppose vote without specific objections should not be counted.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: there has been a lot of debate about using the word "dictator"/"dictatorship" to refer to the Communist/ Rákosi government. Would replacing "dictatorship" with "authoritarian government" be better? K. Lastochka 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think "totalitarian government" would be more accurate. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the article was POV earlier, but not because of the word dictatorship. I had problems with using the term "dictatorship of the proletariate" which is debatable. If Stalin was a dictator (and his article says he is) then Rákosi undoubtedly was too. - TheMightyQuill 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Can benefit from more inline citations (despite the current 70 or so, there are still unreferenced sentences), and more ilinks (even red - I am sure MEFESZ or Southern Group of Forces are notable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I do think that support vote without specific commendations should not be counted. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: "If you oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. " So if you do not specify why you think the article is POV in order to change or to reference the objected material your objection will most probably be not counted. - Serinde 07:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • First of all, I did specify what needs to be changed. Secondly, unsubstantiated support votes is the primary reason why many FAs are so weak. Much voting happens along the national lines (Piotrus is an expert on how this is done). A familiar result is FAs with NPOV tags constantly stuck to them: Polish-Soviet War is an instructive example. If the votes by an uninvolved editor are discarded and he is subjected to attacks, I will not bother to visit WP:FAC anymore. As for the FA director, since I saw him engage in unexplained removal of valid tags from his own articles, I will not hold my breath for his judgement. This is my last posting on this page. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you first posted you didn't say that about Rakosi not really being a dictator. (!) What, exactly, is your definition of "dictator"? K. Lastochka 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • support - This article is now the most comprehensive illustrated online reference, and among nonillustrated sources, second only to the 268 page 1957 UN Security Council report [2] itself. POV and accuracy are in (very) fine balance (see talk). This article not only meets FA requirements but is also an excellent example of the strength of Wikipedia. I verify that I nominated this article and have edited it extensively. Istvan 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support With the sole reservation that I would like to see more citations. I know there are over 50 now, (I quit counting at 50!) but because of the POV/NPOV issues here, I would like to see virtually every sentence cited. I think at some point we have to speak the truth, and the truth was this Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a shining moment in history for those courageous enough to stand up and defy the Soviets. This is a powerful, well-written, article that I can support. old windy bear 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
*response The article has more than double triple the number of reference it had when nominated only a few days ago, and now has 107 126 cites from 96 109 references. It isn't every sentence, but averages out to more than two cites per paragraph.--Paul 17:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article.UberCryxic 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment This is a very good article, which has clearly been the subject of a lot of work, but the writing doesn't really flow and I am not sure it justifies its length. A purely subjective complaint, but that's what I see. It also seems like many of the facts are presented in a vacuum, to the point of being useless, I'd like to see more relating of things to each other or explanations of the importance. For example "By 1952, disposable real incomes sank to two-thirds of their 1938 levels; whereas in 1949, this figure had been 90 per cent." This may be verifyiable and cite-able, but it makes very little sense as presented. Why do I care? What does this statistic really mean? I'm also puzzled that there is no mention of Prague Spring and other similar movements of the era. I realize Hungary was first, but Hungary was not in a vacuum. Even placing the Cold War navigation block at the bottom of the page would go a long way towards wrapping this important event in a bit more context.
  • comment response Good points! 1) I'll add something about the Prague Spring in the aftermath. As to context, the Prague Spring was twelve years later, a more contemporaneous reference is the liberialization in Poland in 1956, which was partially causitive in the Hungarian matter, and this is mentioned. (It is interesting that the Prague Spring article fails to mention the Hungarian Revolution!) 2) The point of the the economics quote is to show that the Hungarian economy was recovering after the war, but after the imposition of the communist government and collectivization, it regressed. This was a source of discontent among the people. It is an important point. I'll see if I can re-write that section in order to make it more clear. 3) The Mil-Hist peer review suggested replacing the Cold War navaigation block with the Cold War portal link to reduce the size of the article. This was done.--Paul 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking over the article's interwiki links, it appears that most of the non-English language Wikipedia articles on this topic do not use the term "Revolution".

German: Uprising French: Insurrection Spanish: Revolution Italian: Revolution Dutch: Insurrection Korean: Revolt Swedish: Revolt Russian: Uprising Polish: Revolt

More food for thought. -Fsotrain09 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, in Polish it is actually "Uprising", unless my knowledge of Slavic languages has suddenly failed me. But second of all, it is irrelevant what it is called in Polish, Russian, Italian, etc., this is an English language article and we use English common usage. The US Department of State calls it a revolution. The British Foreign Office calls it a revolution. And in the only foreign language relevant to the titling of this article, Hungarian, the word is "forradalom" which translates as "revolution." K. Lastochka 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was to compare how the other Wikipedias handle this issue of POV in their article naming. In that sense, Hungarian is not the only language that matters- at least 11 other Wikipedias have had deal with this issue. Lastochka, I completely agree that we should use the most common English language term. But in terms of POV, comparison can only be enlightening. -Fsotrain09 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this point is getting moot. The article is to be called a revolution because : 1 as you say it is the most common name for it in use (according to Google) 2 it conforms to the Hungarian naming 3 it conforms to English official usage (as in House of Representatives Resolution 479, and the mentioned UN report, Brithish Foreign Office, US State Department 4 it is not our position to dispute the conventions and deliberations behind the naming of this event, be it anything from revolution to uprising to counter-revolution , as any name not bearing "Revolution" in it would be deliberate POV against the Hungarians (and about the argument that Revolution is POV for the Hungarians: I have to say that its the name of the event, I don't even think that we have to proove that its revolution, it is a series of events that is currently called a revolution by sources that really matter (like the United Nations, or more recently the US House of Representatives), the nature of the events might be called anything regardless of the name of the article, but they have to be substantiated with really strong references, not just saying its "POV" if there isn't any other point-of-view mentioned from reputable historians or politicians).--Dami 20:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's been moot for quite a while. Next issue? K. Lastochka 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Very comprehensive. Wiki-newbie 10:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - much better. most concerns have been addressed.--ppm 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. My concerns have been addressed, so I revoke my vote. By the way, this page does not appear on WP:FAC. Was the nomination revoked or something? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the article became featured last night. :) NCurse work 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Okváth, Imre (1999). "Hungary in the Warsaw Pact: The Initial Phase of Integration, 1957 - 1971". The Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Retrieved 2006-09-04.  by permission of the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich and the National Security Archive at the George Washington University on behalf of the PHP network