Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 11:41, 30 November 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User talk:Istvan, User talk:Paul.h, User_talk:Ryanjo, User_talk:K._Lastochka, User_talk:KissL, User_talk:Gk1956, User talk:Bardwell, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, User talk:Biruitorul, WikiProject_Cold_War, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Europe, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hungary, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is full of PRIMARY, SYNTHESIS (leading to OR), unsubstantiated causal claims relying on sources for the who-what-when and then claiming why, and a consistent anti-HCP NPOV (much as I despise Stalin's Best Hungarian Disciple, the omissions of fact, for instance, regarding the coalition government are simply appalling). See the Talk: page for a list of sources with severe problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC) To state the case clearly and at length:
 * 1) Over 100 sources used in the article are Primary sources. The chief example used is the "UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957)" used 54 times, an excellent and admirable report, which is unacceptable as a source for two reasons:
 * 2) It is a primary source, produced by participants in the event (attendent RS issues to do with self-sourcing flow from this)
 * 3) The source is used to evidence points of fact, which are associated with value judgements. Using a primary source to support a value judgement in this way is grossly unacceptable encyclopedic practice.  Many excellent secondary sources exist, and reliance, or extensive use, of primary sources is Synthesis behaviour.
 * Similar problems arise in relation to attempts to source from archives such as "(available in Lib.ru, Maksim Moshkow's Library)" or Video (in Hungarian): The First Hours of the Revolution  both of which require access to archives, which are fundamentally and necessarily primary, leading to Synthesis and its attendants, NPOV, OR
 * A third class of major primary source reliance arises in sources such as ^ Hungarian Revolt, 23 October–4 November 1956 (Richard Lettis and William I. Morris, editors): Appendices Proclamation of the Hungarian Writers' Union (23 October 1956) Retrieved 8 September 2006 and The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: Armistice Agreement with Hungary; 20 January 1945 Retrieved 27 August 2006 broadly documents from compiled source collections, again primaries.
 * This problem is not limited to UN, Hungarian video archives, US legal or CWHP archives, or unfully sourced Russian archives. It also includes leftist sources, such as Fryer, Peter (1957). Hungarian Tragedy. London: D. Dobson. Chapter 9 an excellent condemnation of the HWP's role in crushing 56, but a participant account and, again, primary


 * 1) These sources crowd out the secondary sources that are the basis of encyclopedic writing. Many of the mischaracterisations of the Salami tactics era arise because we have not used peer reviewed historian's narratives as the basis of this article.  As a simple example, Bill Lomax is uncited.
 * 2) A very post '89 Hungarian urban intelligentsia right wing perspective is colouring value judgements. Compare the article prior to today's edits on the pre-salami period to Mikós Molnár's A Concise History of Hungary Cambridge Concise Histories, CUP 2001 at 297, "These were free elections, the first and last in forty-five years of Soviet domination.  Thanks to Moscow's exceptional decision, the results were a serious disappointment to the communists.  While they took 17 per cent of the votes - as did the Social Democrats - the overall winner was the Smallholders' Party with 57 percent of mandates.  Its leader, Zoltán Tildy, then formed a coalition government out of the four National Independent Front parties, which consequently included the communists."  The fact that we are driving the prose from Primary Sources, leads to synthesis biased by our own local ideologies and contexts, and these biases are not subject to rigorous peer review by historians.  This is the core of the NPOV issue. But the core reason to review this article is the 100+ Primary sources in use. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You will need to provide some specific examples of "NPOV" issues before this review is to be taken seriously. We've successfully defended the article's merits from Communist revisionists in the past, if you expect to be seen as any more than another politically-motivated noise machine, I suggest you elaborate and provide specific details to back up your vague and broad complaints. Thanks, K. Lásztocska talk 14:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)You need to elaborate a lot more on points such as "anti-HCP NPOV" and "omissions regarding coalition government". After reading the talk page and your absurd edits to the article I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable listing. For example the use of mass banners in this edit, out of line comments on the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issue is sufficiently serious. As far as NPOV consider
 *  After World War II...granted the Soviet Union rights to a continued military presence, assuring ultimate political control.[11] Hungary began the postwar period as a free multiparty democracy... freely elected ...The brief period of multiparty democracy came to an end when the Communist Party merged with the Social Democratic Party to become the Hungarian Working People's Party, which stood its candidate list unopposed in 1949.  
 * After WWII, IIRC, the Soviet forces dismantled HSDP shop soviets in Budapest while creating the free democratic elections. The Soviet military presence's assurance of ultimate political control is NPOV, particularly in relation to the findings regarding NKVD penetration of the "Moscow" leadership.  "Free" multiparty democracy under Soviet guns is somewhat of an NPOV anyway, but the repetition after the introduction of the concept is harping.  The explanation of the collapse of independent multiparty coalition governments is a fit-job, and the explanation of the dominance of the HWPP over the list is trite. Problem references are now pretty printed. Please draw your attention to the over use of the UN rapporteur (a PRIMARY, and a non RS in relation to the historical event) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's how it was. History cannot be changed to kindly agree with your own political preferences. K. Lásztocska talk 15:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have reading comprehension problems I am sorry, I will simplify. Lieing about why the HCP were rotten bastards is unacceptable on wikipedia.  Mischaracterising the bastardry of the HCP is unacceptable on wikipedia.  Using PRIMARY sources, or sources which do not substantiate the bastardry of the HCP, to claim the HCP were bastards is not acceptable on wikipedia.  That they were bastards is correct, and should be readily citable from a Seconary source by a historian, such as Bibo.  I would appreciate if you would address the 100+ primary source issue, and how this causes the article to be Synthesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quote the parts of the article where it claims that HCP were "rotten bastards" we all see that you have a very strong opinions on the subject what we see less is any substance in what you say. Hobartimus (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At diff: "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing economic stagnation, lower standards of living and a deep malaise." cited out of "Library of Congress: Country Studies: Hungary, Chapter 3 Economic Policy and Performance, 1945–85 Retrieved 27 August 2006" which is not a peer reviewed economic source, and stands counter to the literature on the distribution of land and collectivisation, over-investment in heavy industry, and the destruction of urban small consumer goods production. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a recent change (yesterday) by User:Lapsed_Pacifist who changed "Radical nationalization of the economy based on the Soviet model produced economic stagnation..." to "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing economic stagnation..." The original phrasing is certainly true, and is backed up by the reference. I am changing it back.--Paul (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, but how does "economic stagnation, lower standards of living and a deep malaise" is exactly "standing counter" to "over investment in heavy industry" or destruction of urban small consumer goods production etc etc. The things that you discuss are far from being contrary are supporting "lower standards of living" and "economic stagnation". Obviously heavy industry and production of war materials will not result in an increasing standard of living nor the destruction of consumer goods production. Forced collectivization also mentioned by you is not known for increasing productivity. Hobartimus (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much political economy or economic history of post-war Hungary you've done; but claiming "the government held wages static" as a cause of economic change in a soviet style economy is radically disconnected to actual economic function. One of the features of planning in high Stalinism was the plan driving economic activity, not the magnitude of wages and prices.  The NPOV issues I have are with arguments to causation not rooted in academic sources, the Synthesis point. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ""Claiming "the government held wages static"" actually the sentence is not claiming anything about prices alone but the relationship of prices and wages. The sentence plainly states that purchasing power of wages dropped to one third, which resulted in 1)a low standard of living 2) much lower consumption. But what do you think of this sentence. "In the early 1950s, the government tripled prices but held wages static, producing lower standards of living and a deep malaise at a time of economic stagnation." Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposed sentence still contains two problems. 1) Undue emphasis on wages and prices per se in a planned economy (see Kornai for the failure of availability of consumer goods), 2) Claim that this caused the lower standards of living; the availability of consumer goods in raw numbers is the problem, not the regulation of wages and prices.  The sentence needs to turn itself on its head.  "Hungary entered a deep economic stagnation due to forced collectivisation, failed heavy industrial investments, and the destruction of a small production consumer goods sector.  In response the government tripled prices and held wages static, furthering the anger over unavailable consumer goods."  Also the source is bloody appalling: LOC Country studies is not an economist publishing in a peer reviewed journal (their main publishing context), plus the date context on the country study is 45-89. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * nice catch. Alt text has been added István (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I spotted a few problems that still need fixing, though:
 * There are some instances of alt text repeating the caption; this duplication should be removed as per WP:ALT. Phrases are: "Mátyás Rákosi", "Soviet Presidium", "Hungarian Parliament building"
 * Corrected (please review) István (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some phrases contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and need to be removed or rephrased as per WP:ALT. Phrases are: "Red Square"
 * Corrected (please review) István (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The five flags in the infobox are purely decorative and should be marked with "linkalt" as per WP:ALT . I suggest using flag, as it does this automatically.
 * Corrected for Soviet and PRH flags. The Revolutionary flag (File:Flag of the Hungarian Revolution (1956).svg) is currently not listed among the others (though it should be) - I do not know how to do this, perhaps an admin can do this easily.István (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I the revolutionary flag icons by hand for now. The templates can be fixed by an admin at their leisure. Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eubulides (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the characterization of the UN report as only a primary source. While there are descriptive sections derived from the testimony of eyewitnesses, there are many other parts of the report that analyze and draw conclusions. Although not a scholarly work, this seems to meet Wikipedia criteria for a secondary source (rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims). In any case, if there are valuable and reliable references, or alternate accounts that can be added to the article while maintaining its readability, by all means proceed. However, I don't think removing references has any support here. Also, everybody here needs to draw a deep breath before they type. This discussion is becoming heated. Ryanjo (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasons why the Special Committee's report on Hungary are a primary source are due to immediacy, and lack of capacity to analyse the incident as history. The analysis conducted by the UN Special Committee is not disconnected from the circumstances of its time, or the events in Hungary; this is similar to Peter Fryer's journalistic reports from Budapest, they display analysis and reflection, but are primary sources due to the immediacy of the connection.  Similarly, for a historical article such as this, biographies written in the 1970s are primary sources, despite self-reflection; as is the analysis resulting from the US Government funded series of interviews with refugees who participated in workers councils.   Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From a reference in the Wikipedia article Secondary source: "[T]he distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for." Ryanjo (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And its usefulness as a secondary source (generated by practicing politicians) waned in the early 1970s as actual historians started producing analytical results within a tradition not dictated by the make up of the Security Council, but disciplinary peer review (they also, incidentally, had access to better sources than the Special Committee did). We aren't, for example, using Aczel and Meray's pseudo-biography, or much more tightly coaligned, the Imre Nagy Institute (Brussels) which was disciplinary, scholarly, political rather than historical, and contemporaneous.  These three sources lack an adequate break in their timing.  Why do you believe the UN Special Committee's analysis can superceed its intimacy? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mod note NB that The criteria ask for "high-quality" sources, not just RS. The discussion is on the talk page, it came after people complained about John Wilkes Booth using a "simple" source instead of heavy duty scholarly textbooks.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Source quality concerns The following standard secondary sources are uncited:
 * Bill Lomax, Hungary 1956 Allison & Busby 1976
 * Ed. Bill Lomax, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956 East European Monographs 1990
 * Litvan etal The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Reform, Revolt and Repression 1953–1956  Longman 1996
 * Kiraly etal The First War between Socialist States: The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and its Impact East European Monographs 1984
 * C Békés The 1956 Hungarian Revolution and world politics Cold War International History Project 1996


 * Coverage quality concerns
 * Generally: the article fails to cover "the revolution" of the revolution, and go to meaning. I see this arising from the inadequate use of the scholarly secondary literature in English.  I see the heads-of-point of these coverage concerns to be sufficient to make the article not meet FA criteria in terms of coverage.
 * Coverage quality concerns that cause the communist reform / ultra-left communist positions to be obscured. This is especially important in the debate over MEFESZ's ideological position, student organisation of armed self-defence in Budapest, and the union between the Workers Councils and the intellectuals after November 4
 * Nagy's first government is unmentioned.
 * Nagy's informal talking circle, and his political opus are unmentioned
 * The militant communist stance of the Petofi circles is unmentioned
 * Working class riots after failed soccer matches are unmentioned
 * Rajk's campaign to force the rehabilitation of her husband is unmentioned
 * Poland isn't mentioned adequately
 * Nor is MEFESZ or the Writer's Union's inspiration by Poland
 * Coverage quality concerns regarding the demands of the revolution, the article reads as though revolution was natural, instinctual, and finally meaningless
 * The reformed independent Smallholders, and SDP's positions aren't covered
 * The MEFESZ and Writer's Unions demands for reformed socialism aren't covered
 * Nor are the extremist fringe views.
 * Nor are the popular demands (falling largely under the MEFESZ and WU demands, though some workers councils went further)
 * Revolution... for what? Admittedly the longer debate between the regional councils, workers councils, and reformed multiparty central government weren't moving anywhere fast, but the immediate demands were rather well voiced.
 * The coverage of the Revolution in regional areas. Its in Lomax (1976) for goodness sake.  (One sentence on Workers Councils outside Budapest isn't acceptable)
 * Coverage of armed and unarmed resistance
 * 4-10 November are one paragraph, they should be around 3 - 4
 * Especially including the CWCGB's calling off of resistance
 * Post 10 November is empty.
 * Miklós Gimes illegal underground communist party should be mentioned.
 * As should "spontaneous" armed guerilla resistance.
 * The section on refugee flight is missing.
 * The organisation of paramilitaries supporting the refounded Communist Party should be mentioned.
 * And most importantly of all, the general strikes, and arrests of the seesaw battle between the Soviet occupation and the Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest is missing.

again, thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could the nominator please indicate when he/she has completed specifying the criteria at issue? Thanks in advance! István (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To cover a fraction of these coverage issues introduced, would require an article much larger than the present survey article, and thus much larger than recommended for Wikipedia. These issues could be more reasonably dealt with in separate articles. Ryanjo (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been stepping through criteria in a reasonable order in achievable time after noticing the Primary issue, which leads into the SYN / OR issue due to lack of following current high quality academic secondary sources, which then leads into the Undue / Coverage issues. I don't know that there is anything more that could be specified.  To Ryanjo, pick any of the major heads of title and compare their importance to the topic to the potential overcoverage of the section "Soviet version of events", the size of the paragraphs of the Western communist response, or the detailed discussion of interview and selection in the composition of the UN report. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I understand, then, that you feel that paring down sections such as those mentioned above to a phrase or two, and including a phrase or two on the topics you mention, would result in a better article? As opposed to my suggestion to reference an existing article, for instance, Poznań 1956 protests on Poland, MEFESZ in Bucharest student movement of 1956, Nagy's 1st government in Imre Nagy, for example. I also dispute several of your statements, such as that the refugees are not mentioned. Events after the revolution was crushed are presented in summary form, since they were, well...after the revolution. I am concerned that presenting all these objections, but not contributing any revisions or additions, does nothing for article improvement. You need to take the risk, as other editors have done, and start to make improvements, subject to the usual group editing process of Wikipedia. Ryanjo (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for this request - your concerns are expressed in three large sections: 1. on the article's talk page 2. at the head of this page  and 3. below a moderator's note .   Reviewing these are a bit more challenging, especially when they appear in different places and spread out over time.   You replied: "I don't know that there is anything more that could be specified" - but specifically *will* there be?  Are we to expect a fourth section? István (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There won't be. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Image problems The two pictures of Stalin's fallen head are copyrighted. As it is only necessary to show one of them at most, fair use doesn't apply to the second one, as it shows the same information as the first. The portrait of Rákosi has uncertain copyright status. The image of the 1957 May Day parade has two mutually-exclusive licenses. DrKiernan (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done 1. 2nd Stalin image replaced w/ GFDL image (boots) 2. Rákosi image moved to talk (pending status clarification) 3. May Day Parade image moved to Talk pending status clarification. The new photo (Kádár) is public domain w/ alt txt.  Therefore, the photos are likely in shape now. (Please review, thanks) István (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, formatting of citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I'm sorry, I don't see where the FAR listing pointed out problems with formatting of citations. I'm sure I must be missing it, could someone please point it out?--Paul (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it too. If any specific formatting concerns had been raised during FAR I certainly would have set to fix them.István (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to apologise for the wall of text, and dispersal of my criticisms, but at Talk: I noted three sources with citation / referencing issues, sources lacking a full citation / bibliography line, two still appear to be outstanding: Paweł Machcewicz, 1956 - a european date (Currently not fully cited 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)); "3. Lesson: The Days of Freedom", The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.  (Currently not fully cited at 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)).  I suspect these two are trivially fixed. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will attend to it. István (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The two problems listed above have been fixed.--Paul (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * retain: no value in proceeding due to my ignorant use of process and malformed FAR. User:Istvan is convincing in his commentary that the way I developed this FAR is so administratively malformed (6/10 below, point 3) that there's no value to this process for the article.  (I'm not abandoning any of my coverage, sourcing, or article quality concerns; but, the poor quality of my presentation of these is counter productive to article quality.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC) delist: Sourcing quality per WP:WIAFA (1c) and WP:MILMOS (which sets a minimal B-standard on sourcing quality);  Sourcing reliability: over-use of primary sources.  (I will be asking for listing extensions at least a couple of times if the FARC commentary looks like delist after the 3 weeks, obviously if the results aren't delist, I won't be asking for extensions.  I was hoping Istvan was going to respond before this lapsed into FARC, I read his earlier comments as a "hold-off, I'm thinking".) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Its not clear what specific concerns the nom raises. The nom, presented in three large sections: 1.  2.  and 3., contains no specific reference to any WP:FARC criteria by index (e.g. "1(c)") as per convention.  The "clearest" statement so far is here  "the Primary issue, which leads into the SYN / OR issue due to lack of following current high quality academic secondary sources, which then leads into the Undue / Coverage issues."  This daisy-chain roots to "secondary" "primary" (obviously "secondary" would obviate the concern altogether) (per WP:PSTS) and the prime example given is the UN report.  This is the scope as best as I can read it - it's already (due to the large size of the nom and lack of specific reference) already quite nebulous.  It may do everyone some good to confirm this scope now so we aren't faced with a moving target going forward. István (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that I've had a couple of bashes at attempting to scope my concerns, and failed to express myself coherently, I worry about offering such a scope myself. My intention certainly isn't some kind of moving target, in order to delist, and I'm surprised at my lack of coherence.  Istvan's one line summary of my concerns is excellent, though I would point to WP:WIAFA (1c) and WP:MILMOS as clear policy statements on the use of the highest quality secondary sources being the basis for the production of articles in general, and historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (well, its actually your one-line summary, quoted directly - so you should find it accurate). A "moving target" may not be your intent, but, given that the nom is a mountain of text with no specific reference to the criteria by index, then it follows that anyone could infer almost anything, and we would be well into this FARC process still discovering truly new concerns (as should not happen).  István (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a bind, but the criticisms are high order structural ones. If I list them in summary, they're open to interpretation, if I list them at length, they're open to interpretation.  What would you suggest I do? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, I suggest you had:
 * 1) Used the talk page before taking a minor edit dispute directly to FAR, and
 * 2) Made direct reference to WP:FARC criteria by index (ref. other noms in the archive)
 * Both set a terrible precedent for this process, and an undue burden on those willing to work to improve the article. FAR should require explicit due diligence, as does AfD.  Otherwise you get dysfunctional mountains of cross-commentary. István (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain - a main concern seems to be with the UN report, but nothing indicates that document is anything but reliable. True, sources "very close to an event" cannot be used, but that doesn't refer to time specifically. Otherwise, articles like Tropical Storm Faxai (2007) or Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana wouldn't have been promoted to FA in the last couple of months. Ideally, I might like to see a modern work quoting or otherwise drawing on the UN report, but mere use of that report does not render this article less than Wikipedia's best work. - Biruitorul Talk 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain - This article should be continued as FA, for the following reasons:
 * 1) User:Fifelfoo's statements on this articles' verifiable references/citations are not Wikipedia policy, not supported by WP:RS, and have been disputed elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Edits_of_User:Fifelfoo). The application of his personal criteria for cites is a concern, ie WP:POINT.
 * 2) I also dispute User:Fifelfoo's characterization of a several references for this article, including the UN General Assembly Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary (1957), as primary sources.  His statements about political influences on the UN Report, ""intimacy", and his personal opinions of primary and secondary sources in general are speculative and unsupported by any specific references.
 * 3) Much of the content User:Fifelfoo recommended for inclusion in the article is available in other articles on Wikipedia, and it would be unnecessary to add; links could be created if this content is pertinent. His suggestion for removal of content already in the article to make room for his material is disrespectful to the editors that have made these contributions, which have already been vetted by the original FA process.
 * 4) Most importantly, User:Fifelfoo has created vast lists of "non-RS" references, "primary sources" and "coverage quality concerns", but has not brought forth or added any supporting references (which he claims are missing) to the article to improve it. He did not seek to engage any of the other contributors to this article on the Talk page. I am concerned that presenting all these objections, but not contributing any revisions or additions, does nothing for article improvement. User:Fifelfoo needs to take the risk, as other editors have done, and start to make improvements, subject to the usual group editing process of Wikipedia. Ryanjo (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For policy, please look at WikiProject_History/Quality which links directly to WP:MILMOS which covers this article, and to be boring and quote, "Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." And Featured_article_criteria 1c which reads, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations".  The extent to which we are using primary sources is really shameful, we shouldn't be producing an essay of original knowledge, but an assay of existing knowledge.
 * For the sourcing, a United Nations report produced by politicians from a 120 person sample is not comparable to high quality secondary sources. Primary sources in history are determined by the proximity to witnesses and the event.  The United Nations is not, strangely, a historian, and is not capable of generating high quality secondary sources in relation to history.  Even if the United Nations contracted a historian to conduct the 1957 report (which it did not, for obvious reasons), the capacity to produce a historical account in 1957 is limited by access to closed sources.  This kind of distinction between primary and secondary is the commonly shared disciplinary concept of sourcing in history, and certainly isn't POINT.  It is about article quality.
 * Thank you for the invitation to heavily edit the article, but I feel intimidated by expressions of Ownership such as, "suggestion for removal of content already in the article to make room for his material is disrespectful to the editors that have made these contributions, which have already been vetted by the original FA process" particularly if my criticism goes to source bias and coverage which result in the article having its current area of coverage. The edit history since 2006 has been one characterised by reversion.  Given that you and I seem to share differing views of the quality of a 1957 report, and the suitability of it being the key reference in the article, when it is considered by the disciplinary standards of historians as a primary source, do you think it would be appropriate for me to BE BOLD, and delist the 1957 report where its not being cited as illustrative of a point demonstrated in secondary sources, and  those claims?  That, I think, would be acting to prove a POINT.
 * Regarding coverage, could you show me the article which currently has coverage, by random selection, of the politics of the reformed SPD or Smallholders in late october and early november 1956?
 * Regarding uncited major secondary sources, please see: Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The UN Report issue is a "straw man" argument. There are multiple references in this article to works by historians. The article could use more, feel free to add them. Likewise add a reference to SPD or whatever you feel relevant, with references of course. Sparring over whether the present content is adequate, but waiting for others to guess what is needed is pointless (unless sparring is your point). Ryanjo (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This article contained the same general coverage profile and body of references as it did when it achieved its FA status and appeared on the main page. As it has now been improved via implementing good faith recommendations, and at the end of the day, conforms to WP:FARC, I urge to retain its FA status. István (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain Most things were already said, but after careful consideration of the arguments advanced by Fifelfoo, I found them insufficient to delist. As discussed in a lengthy ANI discussion recently this user has a unique personal view on sources that's quite different to that of Wikipedia's. Particularly that official UN reports would be somehow unusable on Wikipedia or citing them would result in a lower quality article. After checking WP:PRIMARY it seems clear to me that the report can only be a secondary source, not even close to the example there provided " For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." as it is explained : "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources". Some earlier objections raised were that the UN report relies on many primary sources, the very definition of a secondary source! Hobartimus (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Retain - The article conforms to WP:FARC. Valid concerns have been addressed.  The oft-cited UN report is a “secondary”, not “primary” source, and of the highest quality.  There is no basis for removing it, nor other WP:RS.  Thus, the nom’s main concern, rooted in WP:Primary, is invalid.  This is a WP:POINT nomination, and coverage concerns are at best WP:SOFIXIT.  Specifically:
 * 1) The UN report is "secondary", not "primary". A careful reading of WP:PSTS reveals clear definitions:
 * 2) “primary...are sources very close to an event. For example an account of a traffic accident written by a witness… “ et al. Neither the definition, nor the many given examples remotely describe the UN report.  A quick inspection shows the UN report to be not a collection of primary evidence but rather a thorough, systematic organization and interpretation thereof.
 * 3) “secondary...are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims”. This describes the UN Report.  The authors of the UN report were not participants in the Revolution.  They are “at least one step removed”.  An impressive list of primary sources (ref Ch.I, sec. B, C, D, Annex) forms the basis of the report, but NOT the report itself.  As a secondary source, the interpretive and evaluative claims, summarized in Ch. XVII, are quite valid for inclusion, as per WP:PSTS.
 * 4) The UN report is of the highest quality. The UN report was mandated by UN Resolution 1132 (XI); by the UN General Assembly (not the SC!) thus as NPOV as possible.  The report was subjected to review, vote, and accepted unanimously.  Methods are explicitly disclosed (Ch I, sec. A - G) in detail exceeding that commonly found among conventional historians writing in the academic literature.  You will struggle to find a single work better suited as a source for this subject.
 * 5) WP:POINT discourages disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The present “Point” includes a personal interpretation of WP:RS described at this WP:AN/I.  The present “disruptions” are several: a) The nom results from an edit dispute with no prior attempt at resolution on the talk page.  b) The nominator’s objective is stated as “I am acting to delist the FA status.” (last line) rather than article improvement.  c) Moreover, the nom, appearing on two pages and in three sections   and  is among the most long-winded and poorly referenced against indexed WP:FARC criteria to be found in the archive.  These disruptions set horrible precedent, and invite future “FA muggings”, or at least will significantly degrade the quality of future FARs.
 * 6) Coverage concerns are largely per the nom’s personal judgment, not WP criteria. This article’s coverage is more than sufficient, and is traditional (compare to the BBC chronology ).  The nom’s insistence that the (123KB+, > 170 sources) article lacks coverage AND requires removal of existing WP:RS sources, is puzzling and somewhat contradictory; NB that no specific coverage issues were raised during the FAR by any other editor, indicating that this is a subjective, not objective, concern.   Instances where coverage can indeed be strengthened fall squarely within WP:SOFIXIT.
 * Comment Fifelfoo has objected to a mountain of sources, more or less all of which appear to have been in the article from when it received FA status. His reasons for objecting to these sources are at times bizarre, and not related to Wikipedia policies - a source is rejected as 'too old', rather than 'out of date', another is rejected because it is a textbook.  Two, which are timelines, are rejected because they are timelines - it appears that in Fifelfoo's world, university History departments apply different (and significantly lower) standards when putting their names to timelines and textbooks to those applied to other items.  A clearly secondary source (the UN report) is rejected as a primary sources.  Other sources are rejected because they are from the wrong kind of historian (ie one that Fifelfoo does not care for), and so have produced a synthesis - surely something that historians are supposed to do. He also appears to want it to be an article about something else - I'm not exactly clear what.  If the FA criteria have changed since this article received FA, then Fifelfoo should state clearly and concisesly where the article does not meet those standards, however it actually appears that the only standards not met are this editor's own. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my world academic Historians do apply different (and significantly lower) standards when putting their names to timelines and textbooks, the lowered standard of editorial supervisions is part of the academic publishing process, and clearly recognised in career advancement and research reporting by the Australian government at a relatively high order level for example, (22-29) in the PDF. I think I've voiced one objection on Hungary 1956 due to the historian being the "wrong kind" (When someone cited David Irving's "Uprising" as a credible narrative). That the sources are from a FA application in 2006, demonstrates that 3 years of change in sourcing behaviour have occurred, editors in 2006 got it wrong, and the article was hastily promoted (for good reasons) with an inadequate coverage of the scholarly secondary literature in English available at the time. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't fob me off just by pointing to a 54 page document and thinking I won't read it - I work in local government and have to read these kind of things with breakfast!! For the record, what Fifelfoo has referenced is a document (of the sort called a direction by the equivalent UK authorities) issued by the Aussie government to Higher Ed establishments, instructing them on how to make a return relating to the research activities (getting income for research, carrying out research, publishing research) which will qualify for a government subsidy.  The document is from 2005, and relates only to the collection of data for 2004.  Certain kinds of publications qualify as research activity for the purposes of receiving government subsidy.  The publication  of textbooks does not qualify to receive a government subsidy.  Nothing whatsoever is said in the document as to the quality of the content of textbooks.  Next! Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2004 criteria are an example of the standard publication reporting criteria that's been present since the early 1990s, and continues today. I'm not "fobbing you off" by referencing a large source: I provided a reference to the relevant pages.  "Qualifying for government subsidy" is an understatement due to the Australian tertiary sector's revenue stream being 90%+ government funding, and the dependency of institutions on research reporting funding.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, unlike you (it would seem), I have read the entire document. This document in no wise supports your assertion that qualifying for government subsidy and being of sufficient standard to be considered a high quality source for Wikipedia are in any way related to each other.  It is a complete non-sequitur.  The government funding is predicated on the university carrying out a particular TYPE of activity (one that introduces new knowledge into the field), which is unlikely by itself to make money for the facility.  The document does not assert that textbooks do not qualify for government subsidy because of the quality of the content.  The likelihood is that it is because (unlike research publications) textbooks are normally a source of income for a university which can make its money back on them by flogging them to its students. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Given his lack of familiarity with the process that developed the UN Report, and his mischaracterization of the 2004 Australian government report that he uses to support his objections to this article's FA status, should any of the statements made by Fifelfoo in his lengthy discourse be taken without substantial verification? Ryanjo (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fairly tendentiously uncivil characterisation. That I feel that politicians separated from an event by an interview table and a year, producing a political report, are in terms of history producing a primary source; and that secondary sources in history have an expectation of time difference, highest reliability sources a greater expectation (commercial or academic publisher).  I last read the report of the special committee in full in 2001; and I'll admit I'm largely unfamiliar with the Bang-Jensen Affair's impact on the report quality, but that seems to have been largely due to political pressure being deployed on a personally unstable administrator, rather than affecting the quality of the report.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When two major points that you have brought out in this FAR are faulty when closely examined, or at the least colored by your personal opinions, it is fair to raise doubts about your other arguments. Ryanjo (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My experience is that accusations of "tendentious" and "uncivil" are used by editors pushing their POV in lieu of answering the question. The question(s) here:
 * is Fifelfoo demonstrably aware of the the process for generation of the UN report, and
 * does he have reputable sources which agree with his interpretation of the 2004 Australian government report which show that his characterization merits consideration?
 * That Fifelfoo's response is charges of slanted editing and uncivil behavior would appear to speak for itself until shown otherwise.
 * On another note, I just (yesterday) obtained an English language source detailing the "official" response to/version of the 1956 events. That it would essentially be another primary source, if you will, is immaterial as long as what it contains is presented in appropriate context. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Despite the nom's vote changing to "retain" and remark that "there's no value to this process for the article" I would urge all involved to  complete this process per normal procedure.  There is indeed value to this process.  FAR/FARC exists firstly to improve Feature Articles.  I believe the editors who have worked hard on this article certainly welcome the community's help in improving it.  I would urge the mods and community to continue this FARC normally to completion.  After all, here we are, having already invested so much time and effort in this, let's finish the job. István (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't being closed early. Obviously there is an incongruency in saying that the article is not up to standard and then advocation retention anyway.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns as noted above by . Cirt (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do what? I can't see YellowMonkey pointing to any specific concerns, just drawing attention to some recent changes in FAC that may affect this article.  He never responded to the request for diffs.  If I'm missing something (and with the volume of text I might be), then point these chaps to it.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey  at the start of this FARC have been fixed.  YellowMonkey 's reminder about "high quality sources" has been addressed by several of the responding editors; there are many such sources referenced. Are there specific sources that need examination? Ryanjo (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain - no evidence anywhere that the nominator has put any effort into improving the article. So the points made above, in case valid, if you can update or improve the article that has been identified as one of the best produced by the Wikipedia community, please do so. Simply attempting to delist a featured article would improve it exactly how?--Termer (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your argument. The aim of a FAR is to improve the article, sure, but if it still doesn't meet the FA criteria during the FARC phase, then why should it stay featured? — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  05:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain, I don't see any problem with the sources, the article is well-written. – Alensha   talk  15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is the "Famous Quotations" necessary? It's uncited and just seems like trivia. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this very recent edit has now been undone István (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to comment on the images on this page.
 * File:MindszentyPlaza Cleveland.JPG is under consideration for deletion and as correctly noted at the deletion discussion page, is a copyvio unless the statue was erected prior to 1978.
 * File:Time Man of the year 1957Hunagarianfreedom fighter.jpg is bordering on failing WP:NFCC.
 * Not expressing a retain/delist opinion as I don't have one. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Statue Image has been removed from mainspace to talk pending copyright clarification.István (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TIME magazine cover image was nominated for deletion on 15 Sep 08 and retained for this article (though not for others) please see discussion and decision here. István (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As was said the second image was already kept in a discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The image discussion page has a header that states that the consensus was to retain the image, after it was nominated for deletion. Ryanjo (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain - I agree with Ryanjo, Hobartimus and Elen of the Roads--  B@xter 9 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC
 * Remove Citations still in a mixture of formats, fulldates or yyyy-mm-dd and the firstname lastname or lastname, firstname. Some are broken. Also per "high-quality" they refer to scholarly sources, current accepted scholarship, not the UN, which is a political body and can be politically influenced.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've begun to repair the dead and broken links and will tend to the date and name issues as well. The interpretation of 1(c) "...high quality..." is not in question however the moderator's objection to the UN document as of a "political body and can be politically influenced" is essentially hypothetical, given that the document has been in the public domain for over 50 years.  By now, the primary consideration should be: *Was* it politically influenced? - neither the past 5 decades, nor this report's critics, have revealed any evidence of real controversy, or undue influence, much less the nature of such influence.  Politically biased? 50 years attest that it was not. István (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But is still not scholarly. And also, I will not be closing this, I've taken my moderator hat off and decided to comment as a normal person  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you defining "scholarly" as per A) method used, or B) identity of the author(s)/publisher? Also, thanks for the clarification. István (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is needed are secondary sources, taking an approach similar to Nikita Khrushchev&mdash;using three to four books that focus on the entire topic and write up a summary-style article. That would, however, require a fundamental rewrite and the obtaining of sources from a library and/or inter-library loan and/or Amazon. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  04:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The enquiry relates solely to the UN report (a secondary source, as defined here); specifically, to User:YellowMonkey's use of "scholarly" and its relation to 1(c) "...high quality reliable sources..." its a rather important point, and different from the primary v. secondary point.István (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...still waiting.... Its an important point. István (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain - I'm afraid the "Wall of Text" approach of this nomination has done some damage (it may have had some good "wake up" effects as well). But that approach is rather unfair.  I don't think that any article could survive a similar FA review unscathed.  Every article needs a tune-up from time to time, and a stricter rule on reliable sources has been instituted since it was written.  I suggest a bit of time - say a month - to come up to speed on the new rule, do the tune up, and get out of the shadow of the "Wall of Text" in a less pressurized atmosphere.  A very little work here will go a long way, and reviewers can regain some perspective with a short break. Smallbones (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delist - I have many concerns about this article that need to be addressed before this article to meet the criteria for featured articles.
 * I've just added a host of cns to the article which need attention
 * There seem to be hidden comments which have been not addressed
 * Two dab links
 * A few external links may need a look-see
 * What makes these reliable?
 * https://culture.pl/en/article/1956-a-european-date-annus-mirabilis-1956
 * http://fan.lib.ru/c/chekmarew_w_a/text_0200.shtml
 * http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/revolt/rev16.htm
 * The citation style has to be made consistent.
 * This article would not even be close to passing FAC, hence the strong delist. Thanks and cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  05:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "What makes th[is] reliable? - http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/revolt/rev16.htm." This happens to be a digital version of a scholarly book, you know one of those "high quality sources"?"THE HUNGARIAN REVOLT October 23 - November 4, 1956 by RICHARD LETTIS C.W. Post College and WILLIAM I. MORRIS Ohio University; Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1961"I'll take a look at some of the other issues raised when I have some time over the weekend.--Paul (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright © 1961 Charles Scribner's Sons
 * Thank you for the additional information; I did not realize it was a book. I've struck the site. Cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  05:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I agree with YellowMonkey above; to meet the FA criteria, the article needs to utilize 'high-quality' sources i.e. secondary sources that have analyzed all possible sources of information&mdash;including the UN documents and hopefully old Soviet archives&mdash;in their books. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * first of all any UN documents and/or Soviet archives would not be secondary but primary sources that no wikipedia article should be based on. At the same time it's a known fact that any related "old Soviet archives" have remained closed to researchers. And finally, instead of taking an easy path here and coming up with not that serious reasons why the article should be delisted, anybody who's not happy with the articles current state should feel free to improve Wikipedia by fixing the problems that bother you. We should build Wikipedia, not WP:DEMOLISH it.--Termer (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the UN documents are technically secondary sources. I don't know if that is "a known fact", hence why I phrased it with the word "hopefully".
 * The article is not fully referenced, there are hidden comments on content issues that have not been addressed, some websites are possible not reliable, and the article seems like it uses overview books on this topic only sparingly. How can you say that these are not serious and major reasons that the article should not be delisted? I'm totally at a loss as to how to respond to you on this point.
 * As to your WP:SOFIXIT comment, it's not really applicable to this FAR. Yes, I could possibly fix it by walking up to my university's library, checking out seven books and spending the next two weeks rewriting the article from scratch, but I don't have the time nor will to do that. Unlike OMT, this isn't a subject I am terribly interested in. Instead, I chose to take less time out my life and inform you&mdash;the editors who have greater knowledge and are intrigued more by this topic&mdash;of the problems I see in this article so that it will not lose its star. So, the ball is in your court; will you bring the article up to the current standards? — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  05:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT is always applicable, especially about articles "that have been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". If you think you can do better, please feel free. For the rest, there is no serious concerns put forward because the article doesn't suffer from inaccuracies. And I haven't seen any hidden comments in the article that would need to be addressed. That's my opinion, your's is different, that's fine. The bottom line that I'm not getting: what's more important here, delisting the article or improving it? In case improving the article is the priority, this discussion should be closed here and taken to the talk page.--Termer (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community anymore though. Why? Because I can't verify that all of the text in this article was checked with high-quality sources.
 * Hidden comments: "does this reference cover all three facts in this paragraph?" "Stick with the source. Do not re-interpret. Source makes no reference to Suez and mentions Egypt only once, as per edit" "Non academic, PRIMARY?"
 * The aim and goal of any FAR is to improve an article, yes. But if the article is not improved to a sufficient standard, it can and will be delisted. It's that simple.
 * For anyone who wishes to improve the article's citations to the 'high-quality' criterion, Worldcat has a nice list here. Click the links to see if it is in a library near you. Cheers, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  07:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * re: user:the_ed17's concern regarding hidden comments, i.e. the : Please understand that the majority of these date from this article's AID, Peer Reviews and FAC, and were dealt with at the time; in too many cases, these comments were not removed as they should have been.  Nevertheless, I will go through them and try to untangle them one by one.  As to the two specific examples given above, i.e. 1) Suez/Egypt, and 2) PRIMARY:  1) The Suez/Egypt comment dates from FAC, the editor Gk1956 having embedded his previous edit summary into the text (for whatever reason) AFTER having corrected the issue himself.  We know this because the resulting text (which survives to the present) is taken directly, i.e. verbatim, from the source.  You can see it for yourself.  In any case, the comment was addressed.
 * Secondly, 2) PRIMARY results from this edit, was part of an EDIT WAR between the nominator of this FAR and another editor who initiated an WP:AN/I over it. Sparing the details, the edit stands, there are two references supporting the text, and the issue was most certainly addressed and resolved, by the a.m. AN/I.  I will now remove both of these hidden comments (as should have already happened) from the body and look for others. István (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And another thing, the disambiguation links have been corrected. István (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck the two issues, but the major part of my argument&mdash;cns, reliable source questions, and a consistent citation style&mdash;have not been addressed. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...yet. This is a WIP, in fact all should note that most "Review" phase work is now being done during FARC.István (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The recommendation by ed17 to review and add recent literature is at least a clear direction, so it is my intention to proceed with this. However, I don't think that a complete rewrite is either necessary or desirable, or even in the spirit of Wikipedia, given that this article has been heavily edited by multiple contributors over years. Is it the standards of Wikipedia FA articles to be the "Cliffs notes" of other books? Ryanjo (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold and refocus


 * Hold, this article has not yet received a thorough review, this FAR is a mess; can someone please summarize the remaining issues briefly, and will reviewers please use Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1 for lengthy commentary, to keep the FAR readable? I'm seeing at least citation needed tags, that a MOS review has not been completed, and that external links desperately need pruning.  I didn't go any further. I will point out that, although citation formatting should be fixed before the article is Kept, it is not a good reason in and of itself to delist.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Spot-on correct. This FAR was already off the rails at its start and never got back on track. István (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue is that the article does not meet FA criteria 1c; the United Nations documents were written soon after the event, and so while they are technically reliable and secondary sources, much better and more modern secondary references could be and should be found. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  06:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please, briefly, list some sample text that is sourced to the United Nations, and provide specific examples of better secondary sources that have not been used? With the amount of excess and off-topic verbiage on this page, I'd like to see, for example, a list of three or four pieces of text that you consider not well cited, and specific examples of sources that you have identified that should have been consulted in those cases. "Much better and more modern secondary references could be and should be found" is unhelpful unless specific sources that have been overlooked for specific topics or text or that differ with the UN are identified. Vague assertions about the quality of the sources, in the absence of specific examples, do not help the delegates evaluate the concerns. As far as I can determine, after wading through the mess, the only Delist declarations are from YellowMonkey and Ed17 (Cirt often enters a "Delist per" with no additional input or review). Can both of you please summarize, briefly, the remaining issues (besides those I mentioned above, which I hope are also being addressed).  Also, it would be helpful if you place your responses in the following context:  Fifelfoo is well known (at least to me, via FAC) for being an ardent supporter of the strongest possible sourcing in History articles: considering his stances on other FACs and FARs, I would be inclined to take his striking of his Delist very seriously.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See talk page for off-review summary of events around Fifelfoo.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For my strike, see the talk page. Regarding holding and focus (as suggested by SandyGeorgia): Seconding the_ed17 on 1c, the inappropriate state of research.  Seminal works in English are missing (Lomax, Bill, Hungary 1956. London: Allen and Busby, 1976.).  The scholarly output of major research units in English are missing (East European monographs [Series], [ie, Hungarian workers' councils in 1956. ed. Bill Lomax EEM Series 294., 1990] ; and, the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholar's Cold War International History Project's scholarly output).  The research output of the Institute of Revolutionary History is used poorly, and non-scholarly electronic output at the level of secondary textbooks has been preferred.  Generally, items are sourced to inappropriate scholarship (Country Studies; CIA World Factbook being used for "After World War II, Hungary fell under the Soviet sphere of influence and was occupied by the Red Army.", where a scholarly history monograph (book) should be used). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that "After World War II, Hungary [DIDN'T FALL] ... under the Soviet sphere of influence and was occupied by the Red Army."??? If not, what's the difference what reference is used for this obvious fact?--Paul (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe he is suggesting that the reference used is not of a "high quality". High quality != reliable source. Fifelfoo, thank you for finding those unused sources; I have been not online and/or away for nearly all of today, and so could not go looking for them myself. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  06:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The underlying concern in this sort of Oppose (or Delist) is not whether the UN accurately or does not accurately source the statement; it's whether the article even consulted other, higher quality sources to present a *comprehensive* accounting. Please focus examples on specific text or items or viewpoints missing or poorly sourced in the article.  Closing delegates need to know precisely why the failure to consult other sources may impact the article. No one has yet provided a specific example of poorly cited or missing text or viewpoints. Amended: See "Specific examples" section below.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ryanjo said "The specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed" after I put notes in the FARC header, then I explicitly pointed it out, and it's still inconsistent as of now. Also, above, someone implicitly accused Fifelfoo of pushing communist/Stalinist POV. The facts are clear. I don't need to say anything more to the insiders and people involved in writing this article, there's no point as its pretty obvious that work is being avoided.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try to avoid re-stating facts from above, and stay on the issues needed to determine the remaining opposes. Fixing citation formatting is secondary to other concerns, and can be resolved if other issues are worked out. If sourcing concerns are resolved, others can work on citation formatting and MOS issues; I see that External links are still quite lengthy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My response, quoted by YellowMonkey above, "specific problems with formatting of citations pointed out by YellowMonkey at the start of this FARC have been fixed" refers to the paragraphs below the start of the FARC, in which Fifelfoo details several citations which were promptly fixed. When there has been clear direction, there has been direct action. The regular editors on this article have raised questions with terms like "but its not scholarly", and I think deserve a concise answer before a complete rewrite.  I am glad that "The facts are clear" to YellowMonkey that "work is being avoided". I personally don't have any sense on the focus of this FAR. Ryanjo (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific examples
 * These may be WEIGHTING issues, but even if written in summary style (with sections that should be created) they are concerning indications of a bias due to limited survey of available scholarship (note: not POV bias). §Postwar occupation misrepresents the unitary list by failing to mention the two controlled stooge parties (Smallholders and Peasants). §Political repression and economic decline fails to discuss the party's own purges which completed the salami process, and laid the grounds for Julia Rajk's campaign, or Imre Nagy (and the circle around him)'s oppositional line, essential processes in the creation of the revolution.  The discussion of economic collapse does not discuss the disposal of the small production economy and the dislocation effects and comparative non-productivity of socialist consumer goods production.  It makes no use of the studies of overplanning in relation to the 1951- socialist type "recession." §International events bizarrely doesn't discuss Yugoslavia and the immediate economic and political impacts of the Yugo-Soviet split on Hungary's economy and politics, with attendent impacts on impending revolution (like, for example, the judicial execution of Rajk).  There is then in the article a gap between 1953 and 1956 which doesn't discuss the relatively controversial appointment of Nagy (in Hungarian and international Stalinist terms), the economic and cultural easing under Nagy that created a realisation that change was possible; the disappointment of the dismissal of Nagy, leading to a discussion of forming an illegalist faction versus his actual policy of sending a memo to the central committee; the formation of the Hungarian Writers' Union as a party section riven by internal discontent; the formation of Petofi circles by (predominantly) native communists (ie: those who served WWII in the Hungarian Socialist Party, or underground rather than in the Soviet Union) or the crisis in internal party politics that the Petofi circle; the displacement of Rakosi by Gero due to the purge list, and Moscow's intervention against this list.  The change in popular reception of the Writers Union in late summer & autumn isn't discussed.  The Rajk reburial is given a rather cursorial treatment.  Additionally, its worth mentioning that Julius Hay had been soapboxing for workers councils under Writers Association authority in regional areas which lead to former HSP party members forming the first workers council prior to the 23rd.  I wouldn't like to run on at the mouth, so I'll finish summarising at the 23rd of October.  In specific relation to the United Nations report, its reporting on the workers councils is outdated due to more recent scholarship. On reading the article, it feels like everything about the revolution is discussed, except for the seizure of power by Hungarians organised through spontaneous democratic institutions: the revolution itself is missing. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, the new wording of 1c is confusing some of the concerns here, which are partly a 1b (Comprehensive) concern? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen this through the lens of "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic." I noticed the issue due to checking the bibliography. 1b seems intertwined with this, though my issues list above is necessarily my own, and arguably some should not exist in the main survey article (Julius Hay's stump jumping for example, or the specific content of Petofi society meetings.)  Though the economic collapse is comprehensively represented, but mischaracterised in relation to (in my opinion) the scholarly literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one of my concerns when that wording was added, and I see other problems in the wording, but I'll raise that after some other FACs and FARs close at WT:WIAFA. For this case, I'm seeing that your concerns are 1b and 1c.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The points raised above by Fifelfoo are either irrelevant, trivia or too distant from the events of the revolution to include in this article. Postwar occupation is briefly mentioned as a precipitant. It deserves a section in a Hungarian postwar article, not here. The parties' purges are mentioned in a trends sentence. The politics of the personalities and details mentioned as so essential by Fifelfoo are so convoluted that each could compose its own stub. Finally "the revolution itself is missing", how theatrical! There are no examples here, just opinion. Whether to cover in detail minor political events 10 years prior to the events of 1956 is an editorial decision, not evidence of inadequate references. Ryanjo (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see talk page. We are clearly suffering scope creep here, and it will be impossible to establish whether a thorough review of the literature has been carried out until we are much clearer on the actual scope of the article. Let's hash it out in talk, rather than clutter this page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing: This review ceased being productive some time ago. While not entirely happy with the article I am going to default keep. I hope reviewers do indeed initiate more article talk discussion. Marskell (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.