Talk:Hungary–Soviet Union relations

message: I note that under the guise of "adding context", Irpen has, in an article discussing 1944–1990 been trying to push (unsourced!) position that could be summarised as "Those Hungarians were Nazis, they deserved to be occupied!".  The inappropriateness of this particular application of Godwin's law aside, I would like to extend thanks to him for this brilliant example of violation of the principle I proposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Knowledge must be systematised. Digwuren 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing like Hungarians where Nazis in the article. As for "unsoursed" this is nonsense and you know that. All facts and dates you can find in, say, Britannica article on the Hungarian history. The context of this is important. From your article one would conclude that Soviets without provocation invaded and occupied another country. This is not what happened here. So this is relevant and restored. And I am adding the link to EB for your convenience. Also, the 1949 treaty granted the Soviet troops the stationing rights. FYI, Soviets completely withdrew before the events of the 1956 revolution. Then they bloodily returned but than, under Kadar they withdrew fully again. Later they did return as a Warsaw pact force but this was a military treaty duly signed by the internationally recognied government of Hungary. You cannot call it occupation. --Irpen 03:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per above, the military presence in accordance with valid international treaty is not an occupational force. Otherwise, Germany is still "US occupied". This material belongs to history of Hungary and other historic articles, including the article a dedicated article about 1956 events. The "occupation", however, ended. --Irpen 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen, please no Original Research. Please bring sources confirming your claims, your word alone is not enough. --Molobo (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You completely avoided any answer to my request by changing the subject.Again-reliable source please. Your word  alone is not enough per Wikipedia guidelines.--Molobo (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not avoid it. I addressed your question precisely. The statement that Hungary or Poland were occupied till 1989, even if sourced may or may not belong to articles. Sourcing itself is not the only factor. See the example with Pilsudski. --Irpen 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Again Irpen-reliable sources are needed to confirm what your wrote about Hungary in the first place. Do you have them or was this unsourced ?--Molobo (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What was unsourced? --Irpen 04:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims to which I responded in my first entry. If they are unsourced I will remove the tags.--Molobo (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo, this is about relevance, not sourcing. The article itself does not claim that the entire period until 1991 was "occupation". As per this, these events are irrelevant to the topic. To give room for discussion, I tagged them, instead of removing. IMO, the 1956 events as well as the fact that Soviet troops remained stationed until 1991 is worth to be mentioned but not as sections at the same level that describe the the events of the Soviet entrance (act of the occupation) and the military rule until the transfer of authority (regime of occupation.) The rest may be presented as the aftermath but there is no need to fork this here as there is a dedicated article for this material. I would be interested in Turgidson's opinion on the offered compromise (brief mention at the lower heading level). --Irpen 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevance