Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hungarian Revolution of 1956

To those concerned about POV and NPOV. Please understand that words which are almost always POV are for Hungary in 1956 factually correct, and the references do support this (see below).

Please remember that Hungary/1956 was a very bloody revolution. Emotion is prerequisite to revolution. To use emotional language is to describe it accurately. Firing automatic weapons into an unarmed crowd can only be described with synonyms of outrage - all else is simply incorrect. To describe 56 without reference to emotion is like describing Monet without reference to colour. It is essential to the event itself. Perhaps there should be a guideline "56:rev". Rákosi *was* a dictator. The ÁVH *was* detested. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" *was* often used by the government to describe themselves, etc. For example, please refer to reference number 2:

UN report prepared for the Security Council in 1957 page 133, paragraph 425 states:

"All the evidence presented to the committee, both written and oral left no doubt regarding the universal detestation and fear inspired by the ÁVH for years before the uprising. To participants in the up rising, the ÁVH had become a symbol of the rule by terror which they were struggling to end."

The same report makes clear that the issue to Hungarians was very clear, page 21, paragraph 60 states:

"There was no single instance recorded of Hungarian troops fighting on the Soviet side against their fellow country-men"

This is from the definitive 268-page UN report on Hungary. This goes on for many pages. This language is almost always POV, but for Hungary/1956 it is spot-on accurate. Istvan 05:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to better set your internal compass between POV and accuracy, please read Albert Camus' open letter honoring the victims of the 1956 revolution. Istvan 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)