Talk:Hungarian Royal Gendarme Veterans' Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article seems to cover two topics[edit]

Dear editors, to me this article seems to cover in length not only its topic (the Hungarian Royal Gendarme Veterans' Association) but also its background (the Hungarian Royal Gendarmerie). The latter could be better explained in an article of its own, similar to other "Royal Gendarmeries" in this Wikipedia. Additionally, all the sources cited are not in English (I assume that are written in Hungarian, language that I don't know). Unless there are sound reasons not to, I'll divide this article in two, as suggested above; initially with minimal changes to the existing text. Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. More than 5 years...Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly blatant subjectivity/whitewashing[edit]

This is the article to which Csendor redirects, and covers the original organization plus veterans association. This article in current state is fairly clearly propaganda in favor of the Csendors, while it complains about propaganda against them. It is inconceivable to me that this organization was uniformly wonderful and that it is completely unfair to complain about it. I happen to arrive from watching Chosen (2016 film) which portrays the contingent of Csendors in one Hungarian city as lackeys of the Nazis, e.g. in collecting Jews during WWII, but with enough independence to take aside female Jews and rape them horribly, before passing them on. A resistance group seizes control and kills them, or allows the raped women to kill them, as they deserve. I would guess that probably Csendors weren’t all evil rapists but nor were they all uniformly wonderful as thus article currently asserts. A more academic, multi-sourced article is needed. Is this version a translation from a Hungarian version of Wikipedia with effectively low standards, I wonder? I will tag article negatively as POV for now, and hope to attract editors who may introduce balance and better sourcing. —Doncram (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC) 22:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]