Talk:House of Terror

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Propaganda?

The two "terror regimes" were not communism and fascism; they were the governments of Szálasi and Rákosi (and to a lesser extent, those of Horthy and Kádár). It is erroneous to mention ideologies to be terror regimes per se. Also, this article literally oozes of partiality. Remember, this is an online encyclopedia, not a propaganda outlet for Fidesz.

Ok plz improve page :-)

I agree that this is not a propagandalexikon, but if this is true, why I managed to found hardcore propaganda of szdsz without mentioning who says these "criticism"? "Some says", but who are they? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. 86.101.107.247 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that I missed some "weasel words" when I revamped the article. Thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately, there were still problems with your edit. One, the citation that you used, upon closer inspection, didn't say anything about SDZSD or MSZP, so I moved it to a place where it was relevant (and, in fact, needed) and put a {{fact}} tag on your sentence. Two, certain words that you used seemed a bit POV from my perspective, so I softened them a bit to make the tone more encyclopedic. (At the same time I noticed a couple of places that I, too, had left the tone a bit POV, and I attempted to fix those too.) And three, I made some adjustments to your spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.

This article still needs a fair bit of work, preferably by you and others who know the topic much better than I do. I'm happy to do the occasional copy-editing and "tone tweaking" if you'd like to add more information and (most needed!) reliable references. Thanks for your help! --edi 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a related question. User:Timur lenk has changed each instance of "fascism" or "fascist" in the article to "nazism" or "nazi", respectively. This doesn't make sense to me, especially in the usage "the nazi Arrow Cross Party" because (despite any popular usage of the word) "Nazi", which should be capitalized, properly refers to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and is not a generic ideology that can be used to modify another proper noun. Fascism, on the other hand, is an ideology, and can be used to describe a governmental regime or a political party.

Admittedly, some confusion may arise because of the parallel use of the words "communism" and "communist", but it should be noted that communist may refer either to any of several political parties or to a general ideology. The confusion could possibly be lessened by using the words "socialism" and "socialist" (socialism is an ideology, not a party, and communism is a form of socialism), but this doesn't seem accurate to me since it is specifically communism, and not socialism in general, that has (apparently) been a factor in Hungarian politics.

With all of this in mind, I'm going to revert the article to read "fascism"/"fascist", but I'm certainly happy to hear from anyone who has a better understanding of the issues and might be able to propose a better solution. --edi 23:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism? - lack of relevance?

Now I've reverted the last edit before me because I consider removing such a great part of an article without even commenting the "contribution" simply vandalism.

I agree that not everything on this page is relevant enough (e.g. link to the Treaty of Trianon or even Prices) but if anyone thinks so he can start a discussion about it.

That's what I'm doing right now :)

And I think the links to Communism and Nazism are more then relevant: they're obligatory.

--torzsmokus

[edit] Revamp

OK - I've tried my best to re-shape this article into less of an advert (e.g. removing the prices, taking out opinions lifted straight off the museum's website) and more of an encyclopaedic article. I thought it was important to include information about the controversy that the museum has caused, but hope this is balanced with the positive views also mentioned in this sector. If anyone things this doesn't sound neutral enough - maybe more could be added to the positives (rather than deleting the negatives - better to have a fuller argument than none at all). --Matt.berlin 17:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've touched up the wording just a bit and added one citation tag (it could probably use more of those). It seems reasonably decent to me now, but I'd feel a lot better if someone with more knowledge of the subject... and an impartial viewpoint... could have a look at it. --edi 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)