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

Re Fifelfoo

SandyGeorgia asked that extended comment be placed in talk. I believe it might be helpful given her reference to Fifelfoo to summarise what I think happened.

On 28th September, Baxter came to ANI to report an edit war at Hungarian Revolution of 1956 [1]. His concern was that Fifelfoo had begun removing content that was sourced, and making some quite large changes to the article. At ANI, Fifelfoo aired some views about sourcing that seemed to surprise a number of contributors - notably his argument that the UN document was a primary source, faults in the use of the citation template rendered an otherwise impeccable source non-reliable, and his rather sweeping statement that all output from academics and academic organisations which were not in peer reviewed documents (eg textbooks, information presented as timelines, online information) were of such a lower academic standard as to render them useless as a RS for a FA. There was a lengthy discussion, several editors weighed in with opinions that differed from Fifelfoo, and nothing was really concluded (as one might expect - ANI being an entirely unsuitable venue for the discussion)

Fifelfoo then listed the article for FA review, citing issues with over seventy references - which he had listed on the talk page of the article. These references had been in the document when it originally gained FA. You can follow what happened next. Istvan and others were unhappy at the listing as it was so vague, Fifelfoo argued that the article should have extensive new content which it had not previously contained and others disagreed with him, and the issue of sources came up again. Fifelfoo again sought to exclude textbooks because a lower standard of academic verity was applied to their creation, and pointed me at a document produced by the Australian government, directing universities as to how to fill in a return for government grants - publication of textbooks being an area excluded from grant eligibility. I don't know what was in his mind at that point, and I make no speculation, other than he clearly thought it supported what he said, and did not appear to be being deliberately tendentious or intending to mislead.

In the middle of this, he withdrew his nom on the grounds that it was malformed [2] - which hasn't stopped the review going forward, but has meant that no one has a clear idea what the objections are. Fifelfoo said in his striking that he still 'had issues' over sourcing, but has not refactored his mass of comments into a clear grounds for review.

I'll leave Sandy to make what she will of that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'll leave it to Marskell, who will have to close this review :) I'm just trying to achieve some sort of focus here before he has to read through the FAR. Thanks for the feedback, and for placing it on talk. I hope my "Refocus" section will bring forth (or alternately, show the absence of) clear examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads is correct. n.b. that despite the FAR's convolution and moving targets, the article itself has been improved wherever clear direction has been given. Those points which remain are not easily discussed within the context of this mountain of babble which has grown so vast that any set of new eyes can see just about anything in it they wish - perhaps without actually reading through the material they are commenting upon. Its a great illustration on why WP:POINT nominations, and certainly those which appear in different sections of different pages, and absolutely those which fail to make any direct reference to the FA criteria should be immediately rejected or alternatively put into proper form by an editor uninvolved with the edit war that kicked off the nomination. As it stands now, there are at least two points of genuine disagreement, but we are left unable to discuss them constructively. I believe either a close after a MOS review/repair OR shutdown/restart is appropriate. István (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Has work begun on Mos issues and the pruning of WP:EL that I mentioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and will continue. István (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads gives an excellent summary.

I didn't do this for a POINT. The article fails 1c in quality of research. The research quality issue revolves around the reliance on the 1957 UN report, use of ancillary non-scholarly materials, and the omission of seminal and major English language scholarly publications.

I withdrew from the FAR process because I was proved in discussion to be incapable of clearly articulating the issues I had; and, as I am not going to significantly change an article's sourcing and direction when there's a clear consensus against doing so.

I don't know how I can refactor what I've said by removing large comments in order to clear the FAR for discussion.

Istvan is right in that procedurally this is a mess which can't move forward in the state its in. All the MOS points mentioned appear to be actioned as they're brought up. But they're non controversial and they are clearly stated. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If concerns are briefly and consisely summarized in the Hold and refocus section, I'm sure Marskell will be able to sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:POINT - Fifelfoo, I accept your statement that you were not trying to be disruptive to make a point. I apologize if I implied that I was describing your intentions. The end result however, having begun the FAR immediately after an edit conflict without resorting to the article's talk page, and the three very large sections of the FAR nomination without direct reference to WP:WIAFA make this case indistinguishable from a true WP:POINT nomination. István (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. After seeing just how badly my involvement wrecked the procedure (and thus chance for article improvement), I've taken the time to try and learn, in detail, through FAC and FAR reviewing just what I should have done. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from main page, Hold and refocus section

I've removed these comments, which were in response to my comment about taking Fifelfoo's strike seriously, as Fifelfoo has already spoken there for himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have struck it because he kept on getting shouted down, not because he was convinced. Per the change to 1c earlier this year, the very large proportion of UN documents have always been there, and the people involved in the article are very confident in their numerical majority, thus weight of arguing relative to changes. Even when I pointed out the inconsistent ref formatting before I directly involved myself, they just said it was fine, even though they were all over the place. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The record speaks more clearly, and those involved are much better judges of their own intentions. Specifically, the ex-moderator's first raising the issue of "formatting of citations" [3], although surprising [4] & [5], was promptly attended to [6] and certainly not brushed aside (i.e. "said it was fine") or ignored. As for the nominator's reasons for striking his delist vote, he has spoken for himself, and I don't remember his being "shouted down" (got diffs?) Indeed, (save a semimodicum of sporadic snarkiness) the present level of civility has been appropriately high, especially for Eastern European topics in general, and especially high given the less than stellar procedure. The editors who want to see this article improved (self included) have been attending to clear points of concern as they have been raised, and this makes it important that everyone is playing by the rules, that the final verdict has not been predetermined. István (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a procedural note: the FAR delegate (YM) can list any issues he sees when an article moves to FARC; they don't have to have been previously raised. Further, just because something isn't listed doesn't mean reviewers can't subsequently raise it. The listing of issues when moving from FAR to FARC is intended to help explain why the article wasn't closed in the FAR stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the right of anyone to raise new issues is not in question (apologies, if it sounded otherwise); my only point is that, rather than "they just said it was fine", the raised issues were dealt with promptly.István (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope creep

It seems that what we are seeing is an issue of 'scope creep' - a common problem in many fields. I wonder if it would help to actually have a discussion here about the scope of the article, rather than hashing it out in the project. If we can get clarity on the scope, I believe that will provide clarity on the appropriate sources, as one can only carry out a thorough review of the literature when one is clear on what exactly is the subject of the literature.

FAC 1b says the article must be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" If we are all in agreement that no major facts or details concerning the period 23 October until 10 November 1956 are missing (if there is any concern regarding this, please indicate this clearly as it would be of major importance), the issue then becomes how much time and how much depth of events is needed on either side to 'place the subject in context.'

Using extremely generic terms, the context consists of

What led up to the uprising

1. The facts - what happened leading up to the event (occupied by the Soviet Military, changes the Soviets made to the government etc)
2. How this affected Hungarian society (repression, economic decline, social unrest)
3. Any exterior events that had a major effect (Stalin's death, the uprising in Poland)

What happened afterwards

1. The facts - what was the aftermath (who got shot, closed down, exiled etc)
2. How this affected Hungarian society (forced to accept Soviet rule etc)
3. What were the wider international effects (UN resolutions, boycotts, ramping up of cold war etc)

Retrospective

1. How is the event viewed today (apologies, memorials, etc)

My own feeling is that there is no need to document every insult, atrocity and abuse arising from the Soviet occupation under 'what led to....' We are not writing a history of Hungary, just the story of this event. Every event in the weeks (maybe up to 2 months), should be covered, but what we are looking at is a background of attitude and feeling that covered 10 years, which can be explained by focusing on the large events, plus a set of rapid fire events that caused people to take up arms, which wants examining in more detail. This is where the modern analyses come it - over time, the idea of what were the key pressures and events refines, and often it only gradually becomes clear which were the pivotal points, where was the nexus.

(added) In the 'what happened next' section, to my mind the detail must include all the events that can directly be related to the uprising. So obviously the crackdown, arrests, trials etc. But also (and again this is generic) who formed the new government, was it more repressive or more conciliatory. How long did this effect (more repressive or more conciliatory last). Again internationally, it should cover events that can shown to be directly related - the Olympic donnybrook, increased coldwar paranoia or whatever.

I'll stop here for comments. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

agreed. This is at least a constructive and rational way forward and I'm willing to follow this path.István (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, at least I'm not completely off track. I'll add the 'post event' rationale, and then if I can tempt Fifelfoo over, we have the groundwork for a discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also on board with this approach. In addition, as I have posted, I am trying to accumulate some of the reference works suggested by the FAR reviewers, to improve sourcing of the existing article with newer, "high quality" sources. However, I can only justifying updating the existing article narrative. Any expansion to incorporate details, such as cited by Fifelfoo, should be added through the usual article improvement process, and subject to review by other contributors. The present atmosphere of "comply or be de-listed" is insulting. Ryanjo (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually see that atmosphere. If the perception of "comply or be de-listed" exists, we should take steps to remove that perception, as it would get in the way of being able to improve the article (see above, for my strike). For an example of how inclined to delist content that is being worked on, see [Kingdom Brunel's FAR] Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a constructive way forward. Elen describe elsewhere the outline above as a straw man. I'd prefer to think of it more as a corn doll. Its a simulation of a harvest in order to provoke a harvest. But I do need to lodge a halt, as Elen indicated I should:

"no major facts or details concerning the period 23 October until 10 November 1956 are missing"

Sorry to be a pain, but, major facts concerning the period 23 October until 10 November 1956 are missing.

1. MEFESZ's role as a logistics and communication point for the revolution is understated at the moment, which is part of the larger academic debate about students versus young blue collar workers as the primary militia
2. I can't believe the demands of October 23 aren't discussed. Yes they're too long for summary style, but the combination of maintenance of socialism, respect for national culture, economic change towards the consumer sector, and a call for a democratisation of Hungarian life are clear across multiple demands.
3. "First shots" doesn't reference the extensive debate about student / worker involvement in the entire revolution, which is probably the best place, as it could be summed up in a sentence regarding the breakaway protest which moved to the Stalin statue, and the requirement to get industrial workers with a blow torch in to topple the statue as a thematising metaphor. (Similarly with the source of arms for the protest at the radio station, a factory militia lorried the arms over).
4. "Fighting spreads, government falls" or "Interlude" should deal with the spontaneous accommodation of Soviet troops in some regions to the revolutionary organs; and, also deal with the failure of the revolution in regions where Soviet troops maintained control (this is in Lomax1976, and has been a theme in recent scholarship).
5. The section "The New Hungarian National Government" attempts to cover the reformation of the Socialist Party, and the independence of the Smallholders and Peasants in one paragraph while discussing the Nagy ministry. The debate over the captivity of Nagy is sufficiently dense to require comment.
6. It also attempts to discuss the geographic and workers councils in one paragraph. The role of the Socialist Party's underground cadre in the formation of workers councils must be discussed. The Lightbulb plant workers council should probably get a couple of sentences. Certainly the internal power structure of the workers councils needs to be dealt with for the decision to cease fighting by the councils. This section should probably be the length the section "Soviet perspective" is, as this is the actual political content of the revolution while active.
7. Conversely, the Soviet perspective (along with some of the content from "Soviet version of the events") on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is sufficiently notable in itself that it could be rewritten summary and the current content spun out to a main article, and expanded to include the Yugoslav-Soviet tension and planned war, the death list controversy from Summer 1956, the forcing of the Rajk funeral by Moscow, the White Book publications, Bandung, and the purge of the Anti-Party group in 1957.
8. 4-10 November is inadequately dealt with, particularly the assumption of power by the workers councils, and the evaporation of the newly independent parties. The decision to cease fighting by the councils, lead by the Central Workers Council, but supported by the professionals, is significant, because it leads into the post November 10 strikes, and the impotence of the Kadar government in this period.

I guess this indicates that I challenge the chronology you're suggesting. The revolution proper seems to be from about the 15th with student party cadre beginning for reform MEFESZ, certainly from the 22nd with the first workers council. It peters out with the final arrest of the Central Workers Council leadership in December and thus the end of the direct negotiation between Soviet occupying authorities and the Workers Councils (the last arrest before the voluntary dissolution). 23/10 - 10/11 is a useful annotation, but even then, 23/10 - 4/11 is much more common in popular literature which sees the arrest of Maleter and the flight of the Nagy government to the Yugoslav embassy to be "the end of the revolution" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need to take another step back to first agree a common meaning of the word "Revolution". It seems there are significantly different operative definitions held by: 1. the nominator, and 2. the article's most involved editors. Specifically, a very traditional, western understanding of "Revolution" was used to set the scope of this article - from its tenure at "article improvement drive", its peer reviews, through to FAC (the very contested and involved process is in the archives for all to see). Conversely, I could believe that the nominator regards "revolution" differently from the traditional western understanding. To illustrate, the nominator's comment (made more than once) that the article covers "everything except the revolution" has me baffled. The current article focuses on the revolution primarily, on the who/what/when/where of the events, mostly from 23 Oct to 4 Nov 1956, and it has a very traditional scope, n.b. the scope of the BBC's timeline here (this is purely for illustrative purposes, not proscriptive, I think Wikipedia has done a far better job than the BBC) (or Britannica for that matter). Regarding the nominator's operative definition of the word "revolution" I will not put words into his mouth, but will let him speak for himself. István (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm happy for this to progress as slowly as required. I have had problems replying in the past, both replying at too great a length, or too tersely, so what I write may be seriously edited depending on feedback.

I think we're both aware that your list of questions answered lacks "why"s. And not just at the grand historiography scale. The students demands, as the model popular demands are missing. As are the combined council demands after 4/11. The argument about "final outcomes" doesn't need to occur, as argued in Lomax. The absence of the demands, and the voicing of them in extremely terse summary through newspapers reacting to the Nagy cabinet, or Soviet fears is a puzzling form of presentation.

The definition of revolution in use here appears to be "a sudden violent change in the composition of government caused or involving a significant proportion of the population" somewhat like a putsch with popular support. This is an operative definition, and one used in a great deal of literature. However, it is not the sole Western definition; nor, in the historiography of revolutions, the one that appears most commonly in my reading. The other meaning in common use in the West, which has had a central point in historiography since the mid 19th century liberal reactions to the French Revolution, revolves around "a sudden or fundamental change in the nature of what government is and what the economy is, incidentally involving government change and popular violence." Within the concept of the first, 11 paragraphs and a single sentence discuss predominantly where, when, whats; there is no major discussion of demands and the appointment of the Nagy cabinet, and its broadening to include independent versions of the coalition parties is seen as the apex of the revolution. Both types of councils are discussed without mentioning their varying assertions of sovereignty. In comparison, Soviet reactions in the 23/10-4/11 period cover 9 paras and 3 sentences, and US reactions 3 paragraphs. I'm not sure that even within the conception of a revolution as a change of government by force in a popular context, that international reactions are of the same importance as the who, when, what, where's.

The second conception of revolution the fact that political demands, the structuring of power by new institutions, and the use of power are subsumed beneath a number of street battles appears to be curious. Also appearing curious from this view is the lack of connection between antecedent forms of power (particularly the council form of the Writer's Association and Petofi in the Summer period) or the continued exertion of power after 4/11. 60 to 75% of a nation took sovereign power for itself in fewer than ten days, in a great many areas peacefully, the structure and pressure of their demands regarding Austrian-style neutralisation and the legality of multiple parties both in parliament and in workers councils is as commonly associated with Soviet intervention as the party headquarters massacre, and this form of power continued after the elimination of both the state's military apparatus and its parliamentary government and continued functioning for four to six weeks. The missing whys mean that the current characterisation of the Nagy government's policies, as formed by newspaper articles, seems at odds with the majority of circulating demands by local or workers councils. "Social democracy" is certainly a misnomer here, and one of a number of varying expressions put by the forces expecting a continuity of sovereignty vested in a parliament. The other option voiced in workers council demands doesn't appear to be present in this article at all.

If the above is unclear, please assist me, and I will edit it shorter or longer to clarify. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, we have several basic issues raised together, specifically: 1. Choice of "Revolution" (vs "uprising", "insurrection") 2. Definition of "Revolution", and 3. The scope of the article (i.e. sorting out the who/what/where/when/why/how). Can we take these one at a time, and separately, so other editors can better follow and contribute to the discussion?István (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Very happy to. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Revolution vs uprising

I think everyone would agree that simply documenting events without also reflecting the available analysis of why the events happened would not meet FAC standards for contextualisation, so the discussion must be about the extent to which 'why' should be covered in the article.

I'm interested that the sociopolitical concepts contained within 'revolution' have come up here, as it's not 100% clear to me that this was 'a revolution' - as understood by any of the definitions used. Sometimes we just go with the terms that history hands down - the Easter Rising is never referred to as a revolution, but it's effects were arguably more far reaching than the event under consideration on the political structures of the country/countries involved. This is described as a revolution, but (and here I do agree with Fifelfoo]] it is not entirely clear from the article what makes it more than an armed insurrection against an unpopular government. Perhaps if we can clarify this (in terms of the secondary literature rather than personal opinions) then we will have both a clearer idea of the article scope and a better source list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

re: choice of "Revolution" in the title - as tempting as it is to simply plea res judicata and move on, the point should at least be revisited, because it's at the tip of the tap root of contention. In any case,we should first review the past debate and decision.

The terms: revolution, uprising, insurrection, revolt, counterrevolution, coup d'etat, putsch - were intensely debated at several points, e.g. here on Talk, here during FAC. Consensus for "Revolution" was achieved and recorded in a footnote shortly before the article achieved FA status. This footnote has now been reinstated, as per the 2006 FAC agreement.

In summary, all contending terms had at least some merit, and some use in the academic and historical literature, especially "revolution", "uprising" and "revolt". Other terms were quickly discounted, specifically "counterrevolution" for being POV and WP:FRINGE, and "insurrection", "coup d'etat" and "putsch" do not require a broad level of public participation, as was evident in the event.

So, the seriously considered set was:

a. Revolution, b. Uprising, and c. Revolt.

All three imply force or violence, and all require broad, popular participation, as consistent with the event.

In the end, the decision fell mostly on three points:

1 Popular usage - in the English language, "revolution" is the most-used reference for this event. The name being "consistent with usage" is an important part of Wikipedia naming criteria, all else being equal. (Another minor consideration is the Hungarian prevalent use of "forradalom" which translates to "revolution".)

2 Success ("complete overthrow") - "Revolution" requires a successful and complete change in government; "uprising" and "revolt" do not. As to what extent this change must be was the focus of much debate. It was, however, accepted that the government did indeed change, even for a short time, directly due to the support of a violent popular revolt.

3 Least Opposed - Despite the merits of the other contenders, consensus understood that there would be an even larger and more chronic controversy if either "uprising" or "revolt" were chosen for the title. So it was agreed to "explain" the choice in a footnote at the first use of "revolution" in the text, and move on.

So, "Revolution" was chosen in the context of its traditional, English-language dictionary definition. This is subtly yet extremely important, because, elsewhere "Revolution" can be a loaded word. It has other connotations when used in other contexts, and it seems this may be creating a disconnect in the present FAR - a profound slippage in context between one side and the other.

Neither Wikipedia's naming criteria (see WP:NAME, WP:NCCN) nor the definition of the terms considered have changed (much) so at this point I would invite editors to seriously consider the choice of "Revolution" in its present context to be decided (rj).István (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Revolution is the most common English name, followed by uprising and revolt as siblings. As Istvan duly notes, sources using the term "counter-revolution" are FRINGE (reading the sources that suggest this, the five white books for example, you can detect a distinct self-loathing).

The government did, of course, change in response to large popular protest, a context of small armed bands, and then later on 4 November due to the intervention of a great power.

In the more extensive definition of Revolution I gave involving fundamental structural change in what government is, There are significant bodies of literature discussing the events in Hungary 1956 as a revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your segue into "definition of Revolution I gave..." may be best saved for after this group has reached consensus on its use in the article's name. Otherwise evaluating different definitions of a term that isn't completely accepted could be futile or frustrating. I agree that that's where we're headed next but lets make sure we are ready to take that step first. I accept the current title - would you, Elen, and others please indicate agree/disagree/comment?István (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(agree, modified my above.) The title is correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

agree - I understand the basis of all three drivers given above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Revolution" in exactly what sense?

please lets wait a day or so for anyone who wishes to weigh in on the previous section before declaring consensus and beginning this one - it may seem trivial, but the above was one of the most hotly debated aspects of the article during its FAC 3 years ago and I think we're at a "speak up now or forever hold your peace" moment. István (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think "revolution" in the title is settled. If you (i.e. all concerned editors) do not object to moving on then neither do I. István (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proceed. Ryanjo (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a fundamental difference among editors regarding the understanding of the word "Revolution" which has led to a disconnect, or at least contextual slippage, thwarting the present discussion. I would assert that the present article focuses on the revolution itself, i.e. the who/what/where/when of events from 23 October until 12 November 1956, as a popular, armed uprising succeeded in effecting the complete overthrow of one government and replaced it with a different one. Conversely, the nominator, has posted that the article covers everything except the revolution, e.g. the last lines of this and ethis edit. This is baffling to me and I believe to other editors as well. It indicates there may be a different operative definition of the word "revolution" - and this difference may play a role in coverage and weighting concerns of the nominator. This is important, as coverage will determine sources, (and formatting thereof) so it must be addressed now.

As before, I will not put words into the nominator's mouth but instead will request he now explains precisely what is meant by "revolution" that is lacking in the article. I believe now is the time for all to all get on the same page. István (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: "why" and "how" are omitted from the above list, not because I believe the coverage is deficient (it is sufficient) but rather because these are fundamentally different considerations, primarily subjective whereas who/what/where/when are primarily objective. The omission is deliberate, because distinguishing between the two sets is important when you are writing an encyclopedia, rather than a history or editorial. István (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the article is regarding the events themselves (including the direct lead-up to) and their aftermath and western and Soviet versions thereof. As for title, "Revolution" is how the October events are described in a majority of scholarly sources, with "uprising" a reasonable second, but definitely not a contender for first place. How the events are labeled in scholarship is what we go by, not what we personally consider to be what constitutes a "revolution" or not.

   The article is most definitely not about the three years prior leading up to the events, that is, fully half the period covered as the Stalinist era in the History of Hungary. Hope this helps, although I rather feel like I'm just stating the obvious. To retain "FA" status, the article must remain focused on the immediate topic.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's a hugely useful statement. This is my feeling also, that while there needs to be a certain amount of 'the Hungarians were pissed off for years' the emphasis must be on what directly led to the move to armed resistance. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both Peters Vecrumba and Elen of the Roads regarding a tight definition of "revolution"; however it is beneficial that the case for a wider definition be presented here before declaring consensus and moving on. István (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding tightness and focus currently the article discusses the period 1944-1953 over eight paragraphs, and 1953-1956 over six short paragraphs, three of these discussing international events.

Regarding definitions, are we proceeding discursively, or with reference to RS? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

re:how we are proceeding, I suppose we have arrived at this point in reverse gear. Your concerns, as interpreted by SandyGeorgia here are both 1c. and 1b. (generally "sources" and "coverage"). Given these, it's clearly reasonable to first settle the 1b. (coverage) before the 1c. (i.e. because we may add/delete sources depending on coverage). THEN, after consensus is reached on both coverage and sources, should we spend time on the other concerns, e.g. formatting and anything else raised.

So, systematically we had to first agree on the use of the word "revolution" in the title before we can approach this step, i.e. proper coverage, and more specifically, to explain the nominator's remarkable assertions that the article covers `"everything except the revolution" which still has me shaking my head in bewilderment, and is loud testament to a fundamental difference in the nominator's understanding of the word "revolution" and (at least) my own.

To make things easier, I will go first. "Revolution" is defined by Websters (OED requires registration) as:

2 a : a sudden, radical, or complete change b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution> e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>BTW definition 1 deals with geometric rotation

Of course, the dictionary definition does not fit this (or any) event perfectly, but the closest, and best operative, definitions are 2a and 2b. The nominator's view is clearly different, and he is invited to describe it here. This should help settle whether we are now covering a) the revolution, or b) everything except the revolution. István (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder - making progress will be greatly aided by hearing the viewpoint of why this article is covering everything "except the revolution".István (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies.

From your dicdef, "a fundamental change in political organization" we don't discuss the councils, or the near instantaneous assumption of democratic control, adequately, at appropriate length. The essence I've been trying to get at is the fundamental change in political organisation, social organisation, economic organisation. What OED's dicdef lists as the "Marxist revolution" in their def. A measure of fundamental or epochal change in the social ordering of being. At the moment, the article reads like a putsch with a small measure of street fighting and a couple of protests. The weight balance between the [various forms of] councils, the Nagy government and the Soviet foreign policy response is lamentable. The lack of discussion of demands is another point here, as the fundamental nature of the change is exposed in both the content of the demands, and the wide spread use of demands following the MEFESZ student demands. The revolution is not the circumstances leading to a Soviet Intervention, but the assumption of political power by the majority of Hungarian people overnight (and occasional Soviet troop collaborators), the institution of a new government and moreover new methods of governing, and the statement of broad principles of a new way of organising Hungarian society. These do not appear with any sense of clarity, currently. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we're back on track. I would insist we stick with definitions of the term itself, i.e. "Revolution" and not derivatives thereof (i.e. "Marxist Revolution"), after all, "revolution" was chosen after much debate. I am not registered on OED, perhaps a better connected editor could post the OED definition of "Revolution". István (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta. I would point to the discourse which describes Hungary 1956 precisely as a Marxist revolution, in the sense of a transfer of class power from a bureaucracy to the people. Especially since 1989 this has been the most common Marxist literature on Hungary 1956, and one used by a number of key contributors to the literature. But getting back to dicdefs and being polite by pasting the resource I was quoting.

OED3 is an etymological dictionary of English, working forward from the earliest uses towards more recent uses. I've included the uses which lead towards the use in relation to changes in social organisation. (non included uses being geological, rotational, repetitive, astrological).

Revolution n.

I. 1. Astr. The action or fact, on the part of celestial bodies, of moving round in an orbit or circular course; the apparent movement of the sun, stars, etc., round the earth. which leads through II. 5. a. The action of turning over in discourse or talk; discussion. Obs. rare. (1456) and III 6. b. An instance of great change or alteration in affairs or in some particular thing.

Then 7. a.

A complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it; a forcible substitution of a new ruler or form of government. b. Without article. c. In the Marxist doctrine of social evolution, the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat leading in time to the downfall of capitalism and to its replacement by communism; also continuing, continuous, uninterrupted revolution, designating the concept of permanent revolution (cf. PERMANENT a. 1d).

Inside all these attempts at definition is the idea of fundamental social change as a result of large scale public involvement in the taking and exercise of power. Lomax1976 is sanguine about the more millenial Marxist meaning of "the final" revolution that ushers in human self-autonomy; but in relation to the more immediate Marxist meaning, of a downtrodden class of people taking power into their own hands he's pretty happy. I see the definition in use in the article at the moment seriously lacking in terms of the self-activity of Hungarians. The reformation MEFESZ, for example, is characterised without reference to the serious political statement and claim to exercise power of forming an independent group association under the kind of stalinism prevailing in 1956 in Hungary. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(margin reset)I believe this is root and crux of the dispute. Sort this, and the other issues become much easier to address. "Revolution" definitions OED 7a and Webster's 2b are roughly equivalent, and are operative for understanding the scope of this article. In this context I assert that the article has proper coverage "of the revolution". However, the nominator asserts a different operative definition, more akin to OED7c. Given that the title "Revolution" was intensely debated, and adopted by consensus by its traditional definition (OED7a), would the nominator clearly ;-) state why "Marxist Revolution" (OED7c) should now be adopted over "Revolution" (OED7a). I sincerely hope we aren't the only two editors left following all this István (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We can probably repackage the debate. I think OED7c is not a good operative definition for this article. The sources which paint Hungary 1956 as a straight advancement of the forces of history generally have other failings (they're insultingly dogmatic, and remind me of Hungarian sources from, say, 1953); or, they're simply bad history. Applying a surface interpretive gloss onto events isn't sufficient.

I do think that the slightly more respectable interpretive works in left history of the revolution (Lomax, Eastern European Monograph series, Andy Anderson's interpretive perspective, and the UKSWP history) attend to these points in OED7a by those who were previously subject to [the state]; a forcible substitution of a new...form of government.. Even within OED7a there is a key emphasis on self-activity which is under represented. The Hungarians currently appear to be shot down in Parliament square, or in the second soviet intervention, but not to make decisions, exert power, enact the new form of government they developed. The epochal (OED7c) elements can then be tersely summarised after this, "A body of left-wing literature views these councils as an indication that Hungarian workers may have been commencing a socialist revolution." [Lomax, Anderson, UKSWP, Quaterni Rossie, Imre Nagy Institute (occasionally, eg, their Gimes piece) etc] which is probably the appropriate weight to that interpretation. (If we end up being the only two editors present, we can try summarising this in a new section, and call for new eyes?) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Operative definition of this article? Based on Oxford English Dictionary definitions in specific editions? It's simple, most reliable scholarly sources call 1956 a revolution, significantly less call it an uprising. Discussing dictionary definitions of "revolution" is WP:OR. It's much easier if you just say what reputable scholarly sources say instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue, Vecrumba, is not about the name of the historical happening (that it is most commonly known as a revolution is beyond doubt), but rather of the meaning of what a revolution is. HQRS disagree about what a revolution is. I'd point to the HQRS Secondaries: Lomax1976, Anderson1963, Harman1988, Istvan Bibo, The Imre Nagy Institute, a bunch of papers from Kiraly1984 all posit a much stronger role for popular self-organised forces and radical social change and make explicit claims about the emerging council forms as unique systems of government. Does the revolution end on November 4. Does it begin on October 23. Is the current depiction of self-activity, council forms, or the Nagy cabinets duely weighted. Following Istvan, we felt that discussing the definition of revolutions in abstract would be informative for moving forward with the article. I'm really open to any other suggestions of dealing with my concerns about weight, source diversity, the absence of "why" answers, and improving the quality of current sourcing; other than me being BOLD and getting kicked in the teeth. As far as primaries, I'd point to Woroszylski, Wiktor's Diary of a revolt : Budapest through Polish eyes Foreword by Basil Davidson ; Translation by Michael Segal; I've only seen it as a roneo by Outlook (Sydney, N.S.W.) 1957. I'd also point to Gyula Háy's Born 1900. And of course the CWCGB's documents in Lomax's edited collection. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Put into words of one syllable then, the basic question here is: was this an attempt to overthrow the existing government and replace it with a specific alternative which was radically different to anything either around it or that had gone before. One clearly cannot talk about the overthrow of the Tsar or the French monarchy, or the English civil war, without talking about what was intended to go in its place, as in all these cases there were major movements afoot to change the nature of government itself. In other cases, the revolutionaries appear to have no clear idea of what they are going to do once they have strung El Presidente up by his heels, or else their desire is simply to return to what was there before or to what is generally viewed as normative - for example the fall of several central and south american dictators was accompanied by the expressed intention to hold a free election. This is not a radical change in the nature of government, but a return to normalisation.

My own feeling is that it was not radically different. It was intended to replace the government with some different politicians, who claimed to have more popular support, but I don't think it was radically different in the way that the Commune or the Soviets were. If I am correct, the article does not need a massive component on the ideals of the revolutionaries, although a good summary of their aims and objectives is necessary, plus an insight into whether any of these aims and objectives came to pass in the fullness of time, despite the failure of the revolution. Opinion from others?Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen provides a useful summary.

Was there in Hungary a movement equivalent to the British radical middle class protestants; the French new (bureaucratic) nobility and literate members of the third estate; the Russian revolutionary movement? Broadly, yes. A socialist movement that had survived Horthy, the War, and Rakosi still existed in 1956 as can be seen in the disconnected circle around Nagy, the Petofi circle, the key MEFESZ activists being young communists, and the Social Democratic Party activists playing a dominant role in the workers councils. Was there an equivalent of the Bolshevik party with a set programme, no. HQRS describe the sudden development of society wide demands in Hungary in 1956 as a new and hitherto unseen structure of revolutionary mobilisation, and have described it as the further intensification of democracy. (Similarly, the levee en mass would appear perverse and inexplicable to an English revolutionary).

Was there in Hungary a demand for a new system of government? Yes. The lesser case is that the Nagy cabinet was seen as an interim measure by Small Holders and Peasants who wanted a new set of elections under a qualitatively different electoral system while maintaining "socialism" in some sense. The greater case is the workers councils which have been repeatedly described in HQRS as qualitatively different economic and political structures; certainly in contrast to the prevailing bureaucratic/party structured economic and political life. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(FAR is closed/keep at this point, further postings are simply to tie up loose ends)

FWIW, my "opinion" agrees with Elen above that national sentiment was for "a return to normalisation", but that is only an opinion. Similarly, the students' demands (which were at one time linked in the text) and the activities of the workers' councils, although certainly not insignificant, cannot count as "intent" or as "causal", and cannot be recorded in this article to be the basis for "intent".

Historians have written many different theories on the causes of 56. Most are seen as very fringe, and the "usual suspects", i.e. CIA, MI5, Zionists, the Pope, Nationalists, the Kremlin(!), Fascists, Freemasons, recently dispossessed aristocracy, are all jointly and severally implicated. The assertion that 56 was primarily a "Socialist Revolution", must simply stand in line with the other contending theories, awaiting something resembling conclusive evidence. So far, this has not happened.

Specifically, the historical literature shows strong consensus that the revolution was spontaneous with broad, with nearly unanimous support. Moreover, the new government was in real power only briefly - five working days in all - hardly enough time to form itself, much less to be accurately observed or judged. Aside from the glaringly obvious fact that the public demanded a change in its government, precious little can be deduced from the actions of those involved to even infer, much less prove, who was "driving" this, and why. Unfortunately, Hungary went very quiet after Nov56, and nobody dared talk about 56 except in the most distastefully sanitized euphamistic terms (In 1989, one of the very first questions people asked each other was "can we talk about 56 now?") This silence led to a vacuum in understanding and opened the door to just about anything - especially pet theories and attacks on favorite targets.

That's why this article is long on who/what/where/when but short on "why" - only because historians have yet to agree on it, and to pretend otherwise is not only disingenuous but also would mislead the casual reader hoping to learn about this event.István (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless Fifelfoo has a couple of cracking recent analyses that support an interpretation that most of the population wanted some specific new style of government (as opposed to just wanting the Russians and their cronies out, which is pretty much the default position for any popular uprising), I dont think we can say that much about why, other than identifying the things that are obvious in the days leading up to the first shot being fired. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already outlined a literature existing since the early 1960s. Its possible that you don't have access to these works, or, did not esteem them in the way in which the relevant academic community did at the time. So, to be generous, I'll transcribe from this book, in specific, Bill Lomax, "1956: the forgotten heros," Hungarian Workers' Councils in 1956 Eastern European Monographs 294 (Boulder, Colorado: Social Science Monographs, 1990): xix-xxxii.

"A minister of state in Imre Nagy's Government during the 1956 revolution, Bibó had, after its suppression, described the revolution as having been: "the beginning of one of the most exciting socialist experiments of this century." ... The revolt of Hungarian workers in 1956...was the worst possible nightmare of the Communist leaders in Budapest and Moscow come true. On their road to power after 1945, the Hungarian Communist leaders had from very early on recognized the socialist aspirations of the workers as amongst the greatest potential obstacles to securing their power. ... The workers were left with no means to express or represent either their interests or grievances. ... But Hungary in October 1956 was the first instance of almost the entire industrial population of a country in the Soviet Bloc taking part in a popular uprising, one that shook the very structure of the Communist state to its foundations, and became rapidly transformed into a nationwide popular and social revolution. For one observer, the sociologist Paul Kecskemeti: "this was the first time in history that the syndicalist myth of the revolutionary general strike, as set forth by Georges Sorel, actually became the basis of sustained political action by the entire population of a country." One of the first to comment on [the monopolisation of the revolution's history by conservative forces] was Zoltán Sztáray... "There is a note of aristocratic selectiveness running through the handling of the Hungarian revolution, a tendency to reserve the glare of publicity for the first-class passengers of the bandwagon, their public carryings-on, their virtues and iniquity. It looks as though the historians of these events shared the traditional belief that what alone makes the world go round is the omnipotence of an upper crust. In limiting their attention... these writers are unwittingly garbling the truth by withholding from the working people the credit due to them. There has been extensive coverage of the pre-revolution strife within the Communist party, the movement of the intelligentsia, the dauntless militancy of the youth; but no paens of praise have been sung about the chief enactors of the revolution" [Sztáray, The Review Brussels: The Imre Nagy Institute for Political Research 3 (2) 1961: 5-8] ... The Western Left, and sections of the Trotskyist and anarchist movements in particular, deserve full credit for having been amongst the first to recognise the important role of the workers' councils in 1956, and the socialist character of the Hungarian revolution, but they too have as often as not sought to interpret the revolution within the terms of their own preconceived ideological constructions. [Lomax xix-xxiii]

I would continue quoting at length, but copyright restrictions loom large. The central point I have been trying to make is that the articles literature survey is not ten years out of date, failing to account for literature which has emerged since 1999, it is 48 years out of date. It is also mis WEIGHTed. The opinions of historians Isvan would prefer to see have existed since 1976; and serious contributions esteemed by the academic community from non-historians (the politicians, sociologists, and intellectuals of the Nagy Institute; the brutally honest popular account by Anderson that has won consistent praise in comparison to more ephemeral western leftist accounts) have been in front of us since 1960. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful: "...opinions of historians Isvan would prefer to see..." misleads a reader into inferring that I've tried to prevent material from certain historians - this is simply not true. Firstly, the number of instances where I have rejected a reference due to its author is precisely ONCE - and if memory serves me, you were on the same side as I was, i.e. against his (D.I.'s) work being used for this article. Secondly, Im perfectly capable of stating my own preferences and am happy to do so, when asked. Thirdly, inferring that I'm not aware of or lack access to Lomax and Bibó is also misleading (e.g. my translating this work by Bibó for wikisource) so there is no question of censorship - neither willing nor accidental.

Hence the fundamental disconnect: This article is about (A)the revolution, and not (B)what the revolution means to socialism. I do not claim the article to be perfect, but I do assert that it meets FA criteria and any deficiencies are best addressed by WP:SOFIXIT or creating daughter articles which explore niche aspects (such as how 56 impacted socialism). There are of course still those who view history through the prism of Dialectical materialism but there is no consensus for Wikipedia to present this revolution through that prism. István (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be in the why section

Personally I think the current lead-up positions the main content well. There might be a bit more on Gero not having a handle on things, particularly being away in Moscow while Rajk and the three others were reburied October 6th after being posthumously rehabilitated in March.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)