Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956/Archive 2

message: For first (fast) read:   - * lead is too long   - * more images are needed   - * Notes section should be References section   - In the next few days I'll read it sentence by sentence and search for faults, unreferenced statements. I hope it'll become FA soon. :) 
Good work! NCurse  work 11:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notes & References sections are appropriately labeled, they just are (were) out of order per Wikipedia:Guide to layout.--Paul 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Notes and references per Wikipedia:Guide to layout? NCurse  work 14:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are referring to "4. References (or combined with "Notes" into Notes and references)," the article has both "References," being a list of reference sources used, and "Notes," in-line citations to specific references & sections of references that support a fact in the text. The "References" section should be expanded into a better Bibliography by extracting a list from the text sources cited in the Notes section. A "Further Reading" section might also be useful, but we'd need some experts to help with the list.--Paul 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My review 

message: The wording in that sidebox for casus belli was a bit strange, it said "popular Hungarian threat to Soviet influence". I changed "threat" to "opposition"...isn't that a bit more accurate/less confusing?K. Lastochka 14:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since casus belli is defined as: "an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict" (Websters), it is necessary to decide first, who started the "war or conflict" (my take is the Soviets), and second, to come up with a generally accepted description of the proximate event that precipitated the shooting. How about "Popular Hungarian uprising posing threat to Soviet hegmony"?--Paul 18:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would word it "popular resentment to the government and state police (ÁVH), and secondarily to Soviet occupation".  Remember that some Soviet units were effectively co-opted by the revolutionaries in the first days, whereas the government and ÁVH were the obvious first targets of the crowd, and no mercy was given either way.  You may say that in a very general sense that the Soviets started it if you entertain causes going back 6 or more years prior, but the actual fighting was provoked either by the large unarmed crowd demonstrating (view A) or the ÁVH shooting into it with automatic weapons (view B).  (Astonishingly, people still debate this)  However it is clear that the Soviets did not wish this revolution to occur, and knew from the beginning that it would be very messy business to extricate themselves from it.  Nobody excuses the Soviets, not even they themselves, but its clear that they were not *directly* provoking the start of this revolution. Istvan 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  casus belli 

message: As we attempt to drastically improve this article, it was suggested that we move all previous discussion to an archive and start with a clean slate. I have done that, the link to /Archive 1 should be visible above. K. Lastochka 17:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean slate for discussion! 

message: The Prelude section is a little clunky--we should clean up the narrative a little, make it flow more logically into "Revolution Begins". I still think we should put in more about Gomulka...K. Lastochka 22:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude to the Uprising 

message: The reference to "... as required by their membership in the Warsaw Pact." at the end of the 1st para. is, I belive, unsupportable. Article 4 of the treaty states: 
:"In the event of armed attack in Europe on one or more of the Parties to the Treaty by any state or group of states, [my emphasis]. 
Furthermore, Article 8: 
:"The Contracting Parties declare that they will act in a spirit of friendship and cooperation with a view to further developing and fostering economic and cultural intercourse with one another, each adhering to the principle of respect for the independence and sovereignty of the others and non-interference in their internal affairs. [My emphasis]
I have taken the opportunity to elaborate some of the background. Bardwell 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Occupation and repression'''

message: The article says: "On 23 October, the Soviet Union activated contingency plans which had existed since early October 1956 for a police action intervention into Hungary's internal situation. [13]". [13] says: "...there is evidence that steps were being taken by the Soviet authorities from 20-22 October...". I would describe 20-22 October as late October, so should it be early or late October? Art LaPella 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the time reference. Ryanjo 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early October or October 20?

message: Since the uprising wasn't put down until November 10, why is the duration listed as October 23 - November 4?  How does the standard literature refer to the timeframe?--Paul 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the usual period given for the revolt. Referring to the 1957 UN report (page 26): several events make 4 November the "end" of the revolution: Soviet forces, attacking on 3 November, effectively were in control of Budapest by 4 November, except for areas such as Csepel and other pockets, which held out to 9-11 November. Imre Nagy fled the government offices to the Yugoslavian embassy late on 4 November, effectively ending the Nagy government. Ryanjo 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duration

message: I noticed that in one of the edits, a reference to József Dudás was removed. His name is commonly mentioned in references about this period. Since we are trying to be comprehensive, would it not be approriate to replace his name as a wikilink in the sentence "Pro-Soviet communists, and ÁVH members were attacked or murdered."? This way, if the Dudas article on Wikipedia is improved, it would provide more detail on the controversies surrounding his actions. Alternatively, we could put him in a restored "See also" section, but this section has already been eliminated some time ago in favor of wikilinks within the article. Ryanjo 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paucity of info in the József Dudás article was one reason I thought it was okay to cut. But it does sound like he should be mentioned somehow.  BTW, what do you suppose this sentance from his article means? He was however, subsequently pursued by Students and Workers Councils in his resistance against the Soviet invasion. --Paul 14:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind about that sentence.  It isn't there any more.  I've restored Dundas to the article, just about where he was, but he isn't called an ultra-nationalist anymore (after all, he was from Romania) and he isn't single handedly blamed for murdering Soviet collaborators.--Paul 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  József Dudás 

message: This: Soviet political reaction, is the next big piece of work needed.  I think it is needlessly dense and pedantic.  I won't have the free time to work on it any time soon, but I hope someone can attack it.--Paul 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that this is a long section, but it is essential to clearly exhibit the role of the Politburo in crushing the revolution, as well as their motivations and methods. There is really no other place in Wikipedia more appropriate for this information, and given the newly available transcripts of the Politburo's minutes, this section goes a long way in correcting earlier overly simple perceptions of why the the Soviets crushed the revolution. I hope that anyone seeking to edit this section will keep that in mind. Ryanjo 13:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet political reaction 

message: Can others contribute more to the Pal Maleter article please (and start up articles on the other two reburied with him and Imre Nagy)? Jackiespeel 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pal Maleter

message: There's a good pic of some revolutionaries climbing all over a Russian tank on the Magyar article (http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956-os_forradalom). Maybe we can use that one? K. Lastochka 15:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the picture you are referring to, with images of kids and happy-looking passers-by in a celebratory mood inspecting a disabled tank, was probably taken during the cease-fire period after the first round of fighting. It would do nicely in the section dealing with the interval between the two periods of fighting, i.e. October 29 to November 3. Bardwell 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It was up as lead photo before, but taken down here:
# (cur) (last)  2006-06-27T17:51:07 Gmaxwell (Talk | contribs) (Remove image listed on WP:PUI)
I have not been able to verify its current status.  Im all for using it - its certainly illustrative. Istvan 17:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I read this phrase in the Economic Stagnation section: "The Hungarian currency, the pengo, experienced substantial depreciation, as post-war Hungary suffered the worst documented hyperinflation in history."
I thought that it was very interesting, so I checked out the source link at http://english.mnb.hu/Engine.aspx?page=mnben_1_jegybankrol&ContentID=2326
To my dismay I couldn't find a single reference to the above claim.
This article seems to be taken care of, so I don't want to interfere, especially when this claim could still be true, so I'm leaving this message so that someone can look this over.
marnues 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "worst documented hyperinflation in history" 

message: I have done a fairly extensive copyedit, mainly removing repetitive and unnecessary wikification and some POV and/or irrelevant passages. But major surgery is required on the section describing events between 1945 and 1956, which is far more detailed than the article requires. Adam 06:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The recent edits in the "Occupation and repression" subsection in "Prelude" are much more detailed than necessary--more appropriate to a history of Hungary at that time--and the prose is far too dramatic. I have reverted the entire section. Ryanjo 02:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: I have found some low resoulution stills from American contemporary newsreels that are in the public domain here:
*
*
*
I think they can be used, though they have a low resolution and Buyoutfootage written on them, but as the site claims they only host public domain material, we could try finding either the original, or modifying these (an ugly solution), and putting them up.
I also asked the '56-os Intézet (Historical Intitute for the 1956 Revolution) , but they have a fee of 4000 HUF (~20$) on each picture (though negotiable, still it can't be free :( ).
--Dami 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion for an illustration for the article: would one of the editors fluent in Hungarian look at the newspaper front pages here? (I think the first front page reports Nagy's neutrality annoncement.) The Terms of Use for the site (Flickr) state: "The Flickr service makes it possible to post images hosted on Flickr to outside websites. This use is accepted (and even encouraged!). However, pages on other websites which display images hosted on flickr.com must provide a link back to Flickr from each photo to its photo page on Flickr." Ryanjo 12:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the headline text, but there are problems with the picture's copyright, and there are technical difficulties. We cannot "post" flickr images on wiki (displaying images not on a  wikimedia server), we could upload them to enwiki under a fair use rationale (though that would constitute as "hosting" not "posting", but its doable under fair use). They couldn't be uploaded to commons as they are marked as copyrighted. I'll try to gain permission from Népszava...--Dami 12:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent! I added the cover image to the International reaction subsection under October 24-November 4. I realize that the date of the magazine is January, but I thought that this was the period that the events occurred that Time is recognizing. Other thoughts? Ryanjo 14:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fine in the International Reaction section, maybe an image description would be appropriate. Also, here is the artcile that goes with the picture: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808898,00.html --Dami 14:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a caption with an in-line reference to the Time article. Ryanjo 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I posted on the Talk:Nikita Khrushchev discussion page, in case editors there would use the image. Ryanjo 14:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Hi!
I sent an e-mail to the photographer of the Népszava Cover Collection on Flickr, and he said, its ok to show his images with the following line:
"Collection from Karoly Szabo  about 200 newspaper pages.
<a
href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dbforum/90914453">www.flickr.com/photos/dbforum/90914453</a>".
If you need the full text of the e-mail, let me know, and feel free to upload his images, that you feel would improve the article. (Also please let me know if you do). Also if you need help in understanding the headlines, let me know. I also asked him to release them under a CC licence but he didn't agree to it yet, as he is unfamiliar with it, so maybe later we can put the pictures up on commons. --Dami 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flickr Népszava Cover

message: Images about the commemoration, statues etc, can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/hungary-1956/pool/ --Dami 15:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commemoration

message: OK, I put up what was available on the commons - mostly head shots of prominents - by no means enough, but at least a bit more decoration (not necessarily tasteful).  There must be some way of getting those 56 photos from the 50th anniversary website, not the 56-os Intézet which wants to charge money for each one. I too have emailed them but as yet have received no answer.  They are truly the missing link, the last big hurdle (that we can see so far).  If you have any means of trying to tease out copyright info on them, please do - Ive also tried and failed.Istvan 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrait Photos

message: Although I appreciate the enthusiasm of the editor in adding this, I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the article and it should be removed for two reasons. 1) it doesn't really provide any insight and it bloats an already bloated article, and 2) the people quoted are just celebrities (two politicians and a gangster) and had either nothing or very little to do with the event.--Paul 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had better also delete the request, at the op of this page under the heading of "Article Improvement Drive", for citations! Bardwell 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the request for "citations" is a request for notes to references backing up the facts in the article. --Paul 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What they said 

message: I changed the dates in the headers from DDMonth to MonthDD ONLY because they read more easily in the Table of Contents (the headings are themselves numbered, and these numbers bump against the dates, e.g. "3 23 October") and not to conform to any specific date convention.  I see no reason to alter the dates mentioned in the body of the text. Istvan 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Conventions 

message: I almost put 56 up for FAC nomination, but decided to wait on:
1. Photos from that Hungarian 56 site - these are very nice and could very much help
2. Cleanup the "prelude" sections
3. Bardwell, I liked the "what they said" quotes and think they should be reinstated with actual photos of the people quoted.  Im not a good graphics editor, perhaps someone who is could do this.
4. Re-ranking (review) from someone from the Military History WikiProject - we cant well try for FA if the current ranking is B-class, Its just too easily opposed as such.
All in all, we are getting closer.  We have already jumped through the AID hoop.  The page is actually very well-referenced, and there seems to be a low level of edit squabbles (unlike a few months ago).  But we'd better be well dressed before stepping out of the limo Istvan 06:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article should again be submitted for Peer Review.  That is the easiest way to a number of good editors to comment on the quality.  I disagree about "What they said." It doesn't follow the layout for historical articles, the section was completely out of context, and the quotes seclected didn't shed any light on the event. Anyway, another peer review should be next.--Paul 13:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to submit as a FAC, the article should also be submitted for Wikipedia:Peer review ASAP. Many of the same folks who prowl the FAC page, comment on the Peer review pages.--Paul 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: very nice creating the demands page - I put up the reference for it too. Istvan 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Candidate 

message: This shouldnt be in the body of the article, but would be a good popup window (in case someone knows how to do it) here is the text of the demands which were read to the crowd on 23 October: Istvan 21:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment These are available from a link in the footnotes.--Paul 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demands 

message: A comment on the Peer review page complains about the dates in the section headings.  Here is the current layout:
2 Revolution begins - October 23, 1956
3 October 24 to November 4
:3.1 First Soviet intervention
:3.2 Hungarian political changes
:3.3 Soviet political reaction
:3.4 International reaction
4 Revolution crushed - November 4 to November 10
Wouldn't something like the following be better?
2 Hungarian Revolution
:2.1 Spark and ignition
:2.2 First Soviet intervention
:2.3 Eye of the storm
::2.3.1 Hungarian political changes
::2.3.2 Soviet political reaction
::2.3.3 International reaction
:2.4 Second Soviet intervention--Paul 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead, lets see how it looks Istvan 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: New sections look great! Ryanjo 21:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes encyclopedias can be deathly dull.  Doesn't "Eye of the storm" correctly describe the period between the 1st & 2nd Soviet interventions?  Like the eye of a hurricane. Overall, the new headings work well.  Prelude -> Revolution -> Aftermath. --Paul 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Eye of the storm has a well-known and specific meaning, and it fits the time between the First and Second Soviet interventions perfectly.  You really have to stretch to assume that someone wouldn't understand it (they certainly would after reading the section) or would misunderstand what it referred to. Istvan understands what it means and explains it perfectly. I suppose we can write for 3rd graders, but I don't see the point. Brain strain and editing time for FAC success would be much better spent fixing the format of the references. (P.S. Peer review editor likes the new headings, but has comments on the text). --Paul 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean to suggest it was difficult to understand, but it's a little theatrical. People would understand if you called it "A pause for breath before the next wave crashed" but it's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. I agree, however, that it's probably not the most important issue to worry about -- TheMightyQuill 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC and Organization 

message: Thanks to all for the great work on this page. Would it be possible to add the :Template:History of Hungary to this page somewhere?  -- TheMightyQuill 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it from References because it is not a reference.  I suppose the best place for it would be "See also," but there is no "See also" section in this article, and it would be too long for any normal "See also" section, anyway. I agree with you that it does look ugly at the bottom, but there isn't any other place to put it.  It would be less ugly if someone would make a horizontal version. --Paul 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian History? 

message: Not being a communist:) I think the lead has a bit of NPOV: "...a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the Communist dictatorship, the hated State Police, and Soviet domination". Propose rewording to "Communist regime" and "infamous State Police". --Brand ????? 11:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your suggested edit. Just do it, there are many editors watching and it will be revised collaboratively if someone has an issue.Ryanjo 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do believe that sources show that the State Police were hated. Is it POV to mention that residents of London were "scared" during the Blitz?--Paul 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand why a lot of the recent "NPOV" edits were made, but why was this removed?In October 1956, the remains of several prominent Hungarians executed in 1949 by the Rákosi regime for treason, were reinterred with full honours.They were either executed for treason and then reinterred with full honors, or they were not.  NPOV does not mean whitewashing.  If these patriots/traitors were dug up and reburied in 1956, it should be in the article as showing growing resentment. What's the truth?--Paul 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *On the other hand, this particular piece of information doesn't seem to have been sourced, so perhaps its excision is for the best. --Paul 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issue 

message: Help!  Can someone with a better understanding of German than I please fix this reference (in the "Soviet political reaction" section)?This was quickly and violently put down with the help of the Soviet military. The death toll was between 125 and 270.Das internationale Schrifttum über den 17. Juni 1953Here's a link to start with: database search "1953 berlin revolt"Thank you. --Paul 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with an English language reference, and changed the numbers slightly. This document is interesting; the Soviets attributed the 1953 German strike partially to agitators from Western Germany, ignoring economic and societal issues. Ryanjo 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Can the citation tag be removed from the sentence about Nagy being buried in the municipal cemetery? This is right out of the Imre Nagy article, which has several references. Ryanjo 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference (BBC) & added it, removing the tag.  Two tags to go.--Paul 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing references

message: Thanks to NCurse, we have the appropriate copyright tag and permission to use the photos on the HA Foundation website (as they explicitly give permission on their homepage to "Hungarian-American" organisations commemorating this event.  That's us.  Ive downloaded them and will upload them to commons and post them in a gallery next to the newspaper images on the Commons page.  The Bem image is the pilot one.  More to follow.
Great work guys fixing the references, we are almost ready for prime time...
Three hours to FAC (this is the time needed to put up the images) unless someone throws on the brakes beforehand. Istvan 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These photos look excellent in the article. Great work and kudos to everone who worked on "liberating"  these photos! Ryanjo 00:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PHOTOS !!!!

message: was often used as a stronger form of reference to the government, most especially during the Rakosi era (pardon, I cant get my diacriticals to work) and immediately after 56, usually used as dogmatic justification for some provocative act.  The footnoted reference contains this several times - I believe the link is certainly accurate, perhaps it may read a bit theatrical to western eyes, but it's certainly illustrative for Hungary 1949-1953 and 1957 and was no joke at the time. Still, if someone wants to link it to its literal meaning then go ahead, but I think in that case, the text itself would need revising to explain the real meaning of the reference.Istvan 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dictatorship of the proletariat

message: About the replacement of the educated classes with a "toiling intelligentsia" (currently reference 9). The citations are originally in Hungarian. I would like to ask for a copyedit of my very rough translation. The 2 parts of the monography (page 74) I reffered sound: "Darvas József, aki 1950. február óta vallás- és közoktatásügyi miniszter volt, a Köznevelés 1950. szeptember 17-i számában az egységes gimnáziumi keret megszüntetésérolsajátos módon mint a „középiskolai reform továbbfejlesztésérol” szólt. Kijelentette: „az ipari gimnáziumok ipari technikumokká, a mezogazdasági gimnáziumok mezogazdasági technikumokká, a közgazdasági gimnázium szakközépiskolává, a pedagógiai gimnáziumok tanító-, illetve óvónoképzo szakközépiskolává való fejlesztése nagyban hozzájárul ötéves tervünk szakemberszükségletének kielégítéséhez”." and "Egy 1950. februárban készült pártközponti jelentés szerint a „VKM a többszöri tisztogatás és értékes káderekkel való megerosítés után sem tudja a párt kultúrpolitikai célkituzéseit megvalósítani”. „A fo feladat – olvashatjuk – a polgári vezetés kiszorítása.”" - Serinde 11:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted some changes in punctuation and grammar. Hopefully I didn't change the meaning of the translation. Thanks for providing the reference. Ryanjo 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference itself needs expansion.  Who wrote it?  Who published it?  What date?  What title Hungarian (and English)? What is the name of the journal? --Paul 22:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's great! Thanks.  I've updated the reference with this information.--Paul 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation help needed 

message: The remains of the boots are clearly seen on the picture by the text. Is there still any additional reference needed? - Serinde 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation need about the statue 

message: Fellow editors:
My highest regards to all of you working so furiously to improve this article.
I am working my way through Charles Gati's new book, Failed Illusions (in the Further reading section) in order to fill in some additional references from another source (and will have some shortly). It struck me that Gati makes a major point that the one of the reasons for the revolution's failure was the ineffective leadership by the Nagy government, a point not well covered in our Wikipedia article. Some quotes: "For five long days, the new government was composed almost entirely of discredited party hacks, at a time when Nagy, with the whole country behind him, could have consolidated his authority." (p. 13), and "Moved by understandable fury against their Communist oppressors in Moscow and in Budapest, the insurgents neglected to contemplate the likely consequences of their actions. And even if young fighters could not and should not have been expected to be politically adept, shrewd, or calculating, older and presumably more experienced hands in ...Imre Nagy's ...government...(should have) asked young freedom fighters to look at a map, consider where the Soviet Union was, and...exercise restraint. (R)ecognizing that guiding history's first major anti-Soviet revolution to victory was a most difficult, perhaps even a hopeless task, there is still no need to obscure their bungling performance." (p. 2-3). 
In view of several FA reviewers asking for "the other side", should some statement dealing with this point be included? If so, where?
Ryanjo 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a review of Gati's book: Commentary Magazine. I'm not sure that the points you quote show "the other side."  It seems more like revisionist hindsight arguing that senseless slaughter could have been avoided if cooler heads had sought accomodation with the Soviets.  If there had been no revolution, there wouldn't have been the 2nd intervention and the killing of thousands of Hungarians, but does anyone really think that any compromise could have been reached with the soviets, or that Hungarians seeing the possibility of freedom would have put their guns away and gone home?  I suppose we could add something in aftermath about how some commentators bemoan the futility of the uprising, given that the Western powers were unwilling and/or unable to back up their rhetoric of rollback with any action.  Is there any mention of this conflict in the article (International reaction? I forget.) I think we should wait for the FAC opposing editors to "specific rationale[s] that can be addressed." before anyone starts making big changes to the article.--Paul 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolution lacked effective leadership 

message: Is there any way to make the little "flag icon" under the combatants list be the flag of Communist Hungary next to the listing of the ÁVH? I can't figure out how to do that but it might be a nice touch. K. Lastochka 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag? 

message: Despite reasonable responses to the POV protest on using the "d-word" for Rákosi and his government, it seems to have become a lightning rod for criticizing the article's drive for FA status. Would any of the frequent editors consider de-escalating the issue by substituting "under the control of Mátyás Rákosi" (or something else) insteady of "under the dictatorship of Mátyás Rákosi", and "against Communist party and Soviet domination" instead of "against the Communist dictatorship and Soviet domination"? Ryanjo 22:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1957 U.N. Report on Rákosi:Immediately after the Second World War, the Hungarian people sought to give expression to their political views. A general election was fought in 1945 by six political parties, authorized by the Allied Control Commission. Five of these won seats in Parliament. The Independent Smallholders emerged with 245 seats, the Social Democrats with sixty-nine, the Communists with seventy, the National Peasants with twenty-three and the Democratic Party with two. The four major parties formed a coalition, but Communist influence steadily asserted itself. By 1948, leaders of the non-Communist parties had been silenced, had fled abroad or had been arrested, and in 1949, Hungary officially became a People’s Democracy. Real power was in the hands of Mátyás Rákosi, a Communist trained in Moscow. Under his régime, Hungary was modelled more and more closely on the Soviet pattern. Free speech and individual liberty ceased to exist. Arbitrary imprisonment became common and purges were undertaken, both within and outside the ranks of the Party. In June 1949, the Foreign Minister, László Rajk, was arrested; he was charged with attempting to overthrow the democratic order and hanged. Many other people were the victims of similar action. This was made easier by the apparatus of the State security police or ÁVH, using methods of terror in the hands of the régime, which became identified with Rákosi’s régime in the minds of the people.I don't understand this squeamishness about the word dictator.  Is there a Political Science database somewhere with banned words? Why are we searching for euphemisms for a perfectly serviceable word?--Paul 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say just leave it, based on that reviewer's unprovoked ad-hominem digs at both the administrator and another reviewer.  (Actually, he fell nicely on his own sword, and an admin might dismiss his vote outright because of those).   Moreover, he stated he would not post here anymore.  No matter what, in any exchange I just dont think you're going to get a lot of logic back.   One thing it should enlighten us to make sure that Russians browsing this page dont feel unfairly criticised by the voice of the article - hence my tendency to focus on the ÁVH more - I think we've done that very nicely.Istvan 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dictator, dictatorship 

message: There is a lot of defensive posturing on the FAC page about the word REVOLUTION in the title. Whilst I believe that UPRISING is the correct terminology, and I think I have made this observation here weeks ago, it is not something that I would argue about, although the point is arguable. However, antagonising reviewers on the FAC page is NOT the way to obtain their support. Please note the intro. On the FAC page: 
:: Because you may have spent weeks or even months working on an article, you may feel emotionally attached to it. Although you may know more about the subject than the reviewers, please be aware that all professional writers take criticism from editors, and that contributors should strive to achieve professional quality in their nominations. Therefore, contributors are strongly encouraged to respond positively to criticism. [My emphasis]
In any event, let's not be selective or economical with the truth. One response reads: 
::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. 
The point is that
 "Hungarian Uprising" returns 190,000 on Google.  Following the logic of the above comment, "common parlance" is obviously NOT "1956 Hungarian Revolution" but "Hungarian Uprising". The reviewers have an arguable point.
Bardwell 11:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not comparing like with like. You have changed the search criteria. Your original search criteria, as posted on the FAC page, was the "1956 Hungarian Revolution". And that was the quote on which I made my above observation. The respective Google returns, at time of writing, are as I have stated. 108,000 vs. 82,200.  Bardwell 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "1956 Hungarian revolution" is more restrictive than "Hungarian uprising." If you add "1956" to your search or remove it from mine, you will see that "Hungarian revoluion" is much more common.--Paul 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's call it a draw. Bardwell 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well in your (and my) defense, some of the comments are simply not helpful. "Hit and run" comments: "Oppose, too POV"...you figure it out. Ryanjo 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolution / FAC comments 

message: Under the heading of International Events there is a brief mention of events in Poland. An editor had left this comment:  what led to this?  If the gov't was the most repressive, why this change?  need some rationalization .  I don't know who the editor was, but they have a valid point. The importance of developments in Poland in 1956 is very relevant to the understanding of the Hungarian uprising. This was recognised and even emphasised by the UN Report (see UN [50]). 
When I have found all the appropriate citations, I shall replace the Gomulka para in the article by something on the following lines: 
In June 1956, there was an insurrection in Poznan. The workers rioted to protest shortages of food and consumer goods, bad housing, decline in real income, shipments of commodities to the Soviet Union and poor management of the economy. The Polish Government's initial response was to follow the Moscow line and brand the rioters "provocateurs, counterrevolutionaries and imperialist agents". Scores were killed and wounded in the riots.  But then, the Polish Party hierarchy realised that they were up against a nationwide nationalist movement and they made a tactical about turn. They reinterpreted the riots. The rioters became "honest workers with legitimate grievances". Changes were announced, wages were raised by 50% and a number of prominent Jews were removed from public life.(Rothschild and Wingfield:Return to Diversity, A Political History of East Central Europe Since World War II OUP 2000). 
Edward Ochab, the Polish Prime Minister and First Secretary of the Polish Communist Party, invited the rehabilitated non-Jewish [sic] (the source is NOT David Irving) Polish Communist, Wladyslaw Gomulka, to take over as First Secretary of the Party. Gomulka insisted that he be given real power to implement reforms. One specific condition he set was that the Soviet Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky be removed from the Polish Politburo and Defense Ministry. Ochab yielded. On October 19, the majority of  the Polish leadership, backed by the army and also the Internal Security Corps, brought Gomulka and his friends into the Politburo and designated Gomulka as First Secretary of the Party. The Soviet leadership viewed events in Poland with alarm. Simultaneously with troop 'manoeuvres' on the Russian-Polish border a high-level delegation of the Soviet Central Committee flew to Poland. It was lead by Khrushchev and included Mikoyan, Bulganin, Molotov, Kaganovich, Marshal Konev and others. Orbach and Gomulka made it clear to the Soviets that if they made a hostile move against Poland Poland would fight. But they reassured the Russians that the changes in Poland were internal matters and that Poland had no intention of abandoning Communism or of being hostile to the Soviet Union. The Russians yielded. Gomulka was confirmed in his new position. Information about events in Poland reached the people of Hungary via Radio Free Europe's news and commentary services during 19 - 22 October 1956! 
To the Hungarians all this must have been sweet music and, most likely, the final spur for a call to arms. There can be little doubt that the intellectual elite of Hungary in October 1956, were saying 'If the Poles can do it, so can we!' The interesting question is, I think, why the Soviets reacted so differently to events in Hungary. But that, of course, is a topic involving analysis and it has no place in an encyclopedic article under "1956 Hungarian Revolution". Bardwell 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I am guilty of putting up the footnote. There are 2 references. A reference within a footnote is clumsy, for certain. I will look at the Gomulka article, with a plan to move it there . Ryanjo 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLAND 

message: I swapped the photos to previous placement - This is of course purely a matter of judgement.  I dont hate the stalin/boots pic, its just that I love the kids/tank pic for the lead -I believe its very iconic for the event - it gives a more human insight and is an elgegant witness for many important aspects of the story - i.e. how did a tank get to puskin u. and why are kids climbing on it?  This picture is worth 10,000 words and is, IMHO, the best choice for lead. Istvan 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Photo 

message: As an example of the complete suppression of the reformist opposition, that the Hungarian military participated in the Prague Spring a decade later. But perhaps this is off-topic. -- TheMightyQuill 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath in Hungary 

message: referring to "First Soviet Intervention" header -
I propose that a more descriptive title would be either "Revolution seizes Hungary" or something similar as it is both more descriptive, and answers two FAC objections at once: perceived anti-russian bias (a la Ghirla) and identifies the point at which the "uprising" indeed became a "revolution".
The first Soviet Intervention, although important, was not causative.
Oct 23 - 25 very few Russians were involved in fighting, it was almost all ÁVH v everyone else.
Antirussian sentiment existed for sure, but it did not translate to open hostility.  The UN reports that peace might have been achieved much sooner had Soviet units not entered BP on 24 Oct because the crowd's anger was almost exclusively upon the ÁVH and (e.g. stalin toppled/Blaha Lujza) the crowd and soviets already in Bp left each other alone.  Summary - Before 25 Oct, it wasnt really about the russians, it was about Hungarians.
Western (and Soviet) eyes, especially before 1989, tend to view events through the prism of US-Soviet rivalry.  This still shades this page (though is not excessive IMO). Istvan 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gero requested Soviet military intervention "to suppress a demonstration that was reaching an ever greater and unprecedented scale." Why is this not a "First Soviet intervention?"--Paul 15:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Fighting (or Conflict) expands and topples the government"? Ryanjo 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try #2: "Expanding conflict topples the government" Ryanjo 16:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  #3 (ver of #1) - "Fighting Spreads, Government Falls" ? Istvan 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I really disagree with this.  We now have "Fighting Spreads, Government Falls" followed by "Soviet intervention." This goes too far the other way and implies that the Soviets were not involved until November 4th. You are letting the trees obscure the forest.--Paul 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How about leaving the Soviets out of the headers altogether :"Revolution crushed"? Ryanjo 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (or for our more sensitive POV critics: "Rowdy Hungarians asked politely by their Soviet neighbors to calm down and return to the gulag" Ryanjo 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I support either name for 2.4. "Soviet intervention" is accurate for the second invasion, because the first response was an internal shift of forces requested by the barely in power Gero government, and the second a planned military operation against the standing government (complete with name "Operation Whirlwind" -- which at the risk of too many choices, could be another header name option). "Revolution Crushed" avoids the first/second Soviet actions dilemma -- although I can already imagine the whining about "crushed" ("just because most of Budapest was leveled, it's still POV"). So after all that, I can live with either, but then no more changes. Ryanjo 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the possibilites discussed for header 2.4, Soviet Intervention is my choice. Since it is the current header, no changes needed.--Paul 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headers

message: Now that this article has been fixed up so nicely, if anyone wants to take a few minutes to improve summaries at People's Republic of Hungary and History of Hungary, it would probably be a good idea. I'm a littl busy at the moment. -- TheMightyQuill 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow-up in related articles... 

message: Paul, the UN doc comes up just fine for me.  I dont see any need to alter the refs - the problem may be on your end.  Ryanjo?  Also, a few days ago, I put the refs into 2-column format but notice that at work (I may have accidentally logged on from there) it only displays as one column (as before).  Are you seeing 1 or 2 columns, and if you know how to enforce 2 (much sharper looking) please do so. Istvan 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having no problem with the UN report. I just put a paragraph about the Special Committee and its report on the Aftermath section, by the way. I get only one column on the references. Do you know of a page with 2 columns? We'll just copy the HTML. Ryanjo 03:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The 2-column option doesn't seem to work with IE but works fine with Firefox.
The doc is fine for me too, looks like it was an isolated problem.K. Lastochka 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Display differences and the UN doc 

message: I know Revolution is really the best word to use, I'm just afraid that a lot of potential support votes might be getting scared off by the big debate on FAC over what to call the thing. Should we change it in the hopes of getting approved for FA, or stand our ground? It feels like capitulation, I know, but just figured I'd at least raise the question. K. Lastochka 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't lack of support votes, it is turning the oppose votes around. As to "revolution" and the recent post on interwiki names, this article is an English language one, and it used the English language conventional name for the event.  The U.S. Department of State calls it a "revolution," The British Foriegn Office calls it a "revolution," and one of you folks that speaks Hungarian has assured us that the Hungarians refer to it as a "revolution."--Paul 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolution, Uprising, Revolt 

message: Should be reworded to sound more encyclopedic:
*"...working class Hungarians bore the brunt of the fighting." (reworded to "Hungarian civilians") Istvan 19:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nitpicky comment: I assume the Soviet soldiers spoke Russian? Russian is a European language...K. Lastochka 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About Ryanjo's changes to the opening bit of the International section, it's good, except I cringed at the phrase "Soviet illusions of the triumph of socialism". Now, I know they were illusions, and you know they were illusions, but in light of the recent and ongoing POV disputes, it strikes me as (pardon the expression) pure komcsi bait. Some irritated socialist or angry Russian is likely to take that as some sort of anti-Russian bias, post a big fat Oppose on our FAC page, and mess everything up. (I'm getting to be like Pavlov's dog about potentially offensive phrases, it's getting ridiculous.) I'm not sure what to change it to, but in the interest of safety, it should probably be changed. K. Lastochka 23:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion sentences

message: Evidently, the capital needs to be the focus, but I think the rest of the country should be mentioned a little more, at least as far as sources allow. In order to facilitate that, let me present a couple of passages I'd like to see interpolated, if others agree. They're from The State Against Society: Political Crises and Their Aftermath in East Central Europe, by Grzegorz Ekiert, 1996, Princeton University Press.
p. 38
The population, represented by a myriad of independent institutions, political parties and organizations, resisted the Soviet invasion not only by a general strike but by taking up arms to defend their revolution. The most desperate armed resistance was mounted in the industrial areas of Csepel, Ujpest, Pecs, Miskolc, and above all, Dunapentele-the new industrial complex formerly known as "Stalin-town." The mountains near Miskolc and Pecs were the main strongholds of partisan resistance. Intense fighting in the capital and the provinces between poorly armed insurgents and a vastly superior Soviet army lasted until November 9. Skirmishes continued in isolated aareas until the beginning of December. In the country's industrial centers, a general strike lasted by and large until mid-January of 1957.
p. 51:
Our knowledge of what happened in provincial towns and in the countryside during the revolution is still very fragmented and limited. Most of the historiography of the Hungarian Revolution has concentrated on the events in Budapest and political struggles and decisions on the national level. Lomax's history of the revolution published in 1976 is one of the preciously few works that gives a more systematic account of the situation outside Budapest. From his account it is apparent that in provincial cities officials of the old Stalinist regime put up little or no resistance to the revolution. In some places like Gyor, the old authorities quietly disintegrated almost overnight, and old officials slipped away. In others, the old regime continued to exist without change through the first days of the revolution. In Pecs, Lomax observes, "The Stalinist authorities in both the town and party administration and in the factories sought to maintain control for several days with the support of a force of over a thousand armed security police (AVH) men." Finally, in some places party-state functionaries joined the revolution. In Milkolc, for example, "from the start of the revolution the
p. 52:
local party leadersip declared its solidarity with the people's demands, and local party leaders and activists took a leading role in organizing the revolutionary forces."
The only force that desperately resisted the revolution through the country were units of the security police AVH. The regular police and army units either remained uncommitted or joined the emerging revolutionary institutions. Although the history of the revolution outside Budapest is still incomplete, the scattered information we have clearly leads to the conclusion that the whole institutional structure of the party-state on the local level collapsed either instantly or in a matter of days, and the politicla vacuum that emerged was rapidly filled up by new revolutionary institutions. The vivid indication of the rapid dissolution of the party-state's institutions wa the almost total lack of effective resistance on the side of the old regime. The number of functionaries killed opposing the revolutionary forces was surprisingly small. The postintervention government eager to justify the Soviet intervention and political repression, was able to produce only 220 cases of victims of "counter-revolutionary" terror throughout the whole country, of whom 164 were members of the state armed forces, mostly the AVH. Biruitorul 20:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think this article is getting dangerously close to being bloated.  If it weren't currently up for FAC, I'd be tempted to hack it down to a reasonable size. Currently, I don't support any additions regardless of their merit. Also, we've already had one supporter reneg because of too many changes to the article during FAC. It's time for an editing moritorium except for responding to FAC concerns.--Paul 21:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I think I'm guilty of this in the past few days. I will cease and desist. Ryanjo 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *We all are caught up in a zeal to make the article perfect, and now we have gotten it to excellent++. Let's provide the Italian Communist Party refs and then let's stop editing and see if we can get through FAC. That means contacting the oppose votes and asking them to revisit the article.--Paul 14:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few more little detail things to clean up, then I agree, stop editing and try to turn around oppose votes. I can speak Russian OK, maybe I should work on getting Ghirla's support? K. Lastochka 14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I just went and wrote a message in Russian to Ghirla (let me tell you, his talk page looks like a war zone.) Basically just asked him to re-read it, said that we've been working hard to clean it up, asked what he thought. Maybe will get a positive response. K. Lastochka 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside Budapest

message: (I just read the commented text in the first para of the Aftermath>International subsection.) After reading Tutmosis' points, my motivation for removing the stronger statements was that I just couldn't find a quote from a good reference that could support the first two statements. The events in Hungary reinforced the inability of the Western alliance to roll back Soviet domination during the height of the Cold War, fearing retaliation by Warsaw Pact forces along their borders. Soviet action had clearly shown that, regardless of national ambitions of the Warsaw Pact client nations, armed force would be used to maintain regimes that reflected Soviet-style communism.The statements are true, of course, but as an analysis of the events, and therefore could be challenged. What I could find, and tried to say, was that the '56 events in Hungary: 1. made both sides realize that the Cold War in Europe had frozen the areas of influence, and both sides were reduced to propaganda and posturing, and 2. There was no real hope for the Eastern Europe as lomg as the Soviets used force, which is what Dubcek realized at the end, so stay alive for the final round. The paragraph needs some work, so have at it. Ryanjo 23:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International section 

message: I didn't see this mentioned in the article, so I'll mention it here in case someone else has also heard this.
My mom told me more than once that once the Soviets regained control, they looked at pictures of those participating in the revolution in order to execute participants.  They also apparently went as far as to imprison those teenagers under 18 until they turned 18 so they could execute them then.  If true and a citation is found, could this be added in?  It seems noteworthy to me. Andromeda321 02:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And noteworthy to me too.  IMHO there is a lot of truth in these stories, at least to a certain extent - crowd photos were always used as evidence, but more to corroborate denunciations than to start investigations.  As far as imprisoning kids till they turned 18 so they could be executed - I also heard this but I believe in many cases the authorities had more bullets than patience.  Unfortunately, I dont see our being able to add these in as there are many reviewers who would look at the events (even if you had gold-standard evidence) as being POV. Istvan 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we need to hold on new material, especially if it might be thought of as slanted. Ryanjo 15:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are there really verifiable references for these accusations?  I had a hard time coming up with a reference for 26,000 arrests and 13,000 convictions (and if anyone can come up with a better one, it would be appreciated). --Paul 15:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executed Prisoners