Talk:László Csatáry

Mistake?

• First:

His real name is Csizsik-Csatáry László ('eastern name order' because he is hungarian) just google this name ( here is an example from a news site: http://www.hir24.hu/belfold/2012/04/20/kutyakorbaccsal-verte-az-embereket-a-naci-magyar-rendor/ ) Check hungarian name order on wikipedia.

• Second:

In the city of Kassa (Košice) in Hungarian-occupied Slovakia

1. Slovakia didn't exist at that time, because it only formed in 1993. Check it on wikipedia. The name of the country was Czechoslovakia.
2. It wasn't an occupation. Indeed Hungary occuppied some territory from Checkoslovakia in 1939.05.15-18, but Kassa was already in Hungary after the First Vienna Award. And it was an aggreement between Hungary and Checkoslovakia, approved by both countries, and England, France, Italy and Germany. So Kassa was in Hungary at that time (1944). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.129.234 (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Third:

Csatáry wasn't an "alleged|convicted" nazi war criminal. Hungaria wasn't a nazi state, there wasn't at that time an independent Hungarian nazi party. Nazism is - according to the Wikipedia entry - used only in connection with Germany and the German NSDAP Rmsoran (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd think that your "in connection with Germany" part there might be suitible explanation, considering that the man was responsible for sending ~15,000 jews to Auschwitz.Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

1. "Slovakia didn't exist at that time, because it only formed in 1993. Check it on wikipedia." - Slovakia existed in that time, it declared its independence in 1939. It was called First Slovak Republic, it was a nazi puppet state. But Kassa was in Hungary at that time, that is correct. --Ltbuni (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV template

User:Norden1990, please read the NPOV template: "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies."

You have to explain here, on the talk page, which are your complaints regarding this article. Please respect this directive. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All quotes implies that Csatáry is guilty. Don't forget, everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Furthermore he was sentenced to death by Czechoslovakia, a country which no longer exists. A new prosecution must be started against him in Hungary, because he had no trial before that in that country. Until that, Wikipedia have to stay neutral and also should be reflected in other views. -- Norden1990 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, anybody found guilty of anything in West Germany, East Germany, Yugoslavia, the USSR or any other vanished country should be considered innocent. That's going to required a lot of editing of the Nuremberg Trials article for a start. 46.208.29.28 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be stretching the point. 1, there are no "all quotes" here. There's barely an article, and what it does state is stuff that he was either charged with or convicted of previously. 2, presumption of innocence as a legal standard is actually far from standard (incorrect as that may be). On a similar point, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia or it's editors to determine if criminal proceedings, courts or convictions are "valid". They either happened or didn't happen. 3, you're making an assumption that the previous conviction is somehow invalid, which first off is irrelevant to how the article is worded and second is your own POV and/or Synthesis. 4, if you can be specific about what sections you consider to be non-neutral in wording, we can work that out and remove the template. That's the reason for putting the template up: so it can be corrected and the template removed.

As it stands I can see where you could have a POV for there being non-neutral wording here, but the majority of your argument is based on your own beliefs of international law (which to put it simply: mean absolutely nothing here). Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to call him a "convicted war criminal" even though he was convicted in absentia, then you should begin Gabi Ashkenazi's biography by calling him a "convicted war criminal", since a Turkish court (Turkey still exists) convicted him of the Marvi Marmarea raid and killings last year). If not, then you should remove that from Csatary's biography for the sake of consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:29:DF5:1438:14A6:2B07 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"convicted in absentia"

A 'lot' of WW2 folks were convicted in absentia. Why? Because they fled to the four corners of the earth under aliases. It's terribly common for car tribunals to be held in absentia even when the person's location is known, simply because that means they still have an army between them and the prosecuting parties. I fail to see a problem so long as it's noted that he was convicted in absentia as opposed to just "convicted". Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Until that, Wikipedia have to stay neutral and also should be reflected in other views." Norden1990, you are free to present us those sources according to whom László Csizsik-Csatáry is innocent and his trial was political, biased and the sentence inadequate. 91.121.102.62 (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In custody?

The article I found on him says they found his previous address, but that he was not there at the time. Is he actually in custody? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely, since neither procedure is instituted against him. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: he was detained. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Charged on June 18, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.178.67 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

László Csizsik-Csatáry → László Csatáry – per WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. See, for example, [1], [2], [3] and [4]. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. "László Csatáry" is the common name of this person. "László Csatáry" -Csizsik gets 166,000 Google hits; "László Csizsik-Csatáry" gets 35,300, roughly 18% of all references. Furthermore, since there are no other people named "László Csatáry", no additional part of his name is needed to fully identify the subject of this article to the average reader. bd2412 T 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is not a biography

Many of the items on this page are just re-hashings of alleged war crimes reported by newspapers. People who actually knew Csatary are having difficulty getting changes to this page. You cannot call this a biography. It was a very short part of his life. It's just statements from ENGLISH newspapers in the last two years. Shame on the editors for pretending they know more about Csatary than his own family. Wikipedia should get out of the biography business. You wouldn't even let the man himself correct his own name. You should at least have quotes from the Hungarian newspaper about the facts in the case before you print things like this. Hungarian newspaper were far more thorough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.49.178 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Laszlo Csatary An Innocent Man

The Laszlo Csatary case was dismissed by the Budapest Investigative Prosecution Office in Hungary on July 12, 2013 based on documented evidence that Mr. Csatary was stationed elsewhere and was not involved in the crimes he was accused of. The RCMP in Canada also did a thorough criminal reference check on Mr. Csatary and provided him with a statement that he was not guilty of any crimes. The Canadian War Crimes Tribunal also did not pursue any charges against Mr. Csatary. The National Archives of Hungary are stacked with documentation that prove Laszlo Csatary was stationed on another part of Hungary some 200km from the accused crimes. Witnesses of his accusers could also not identify Mr. Csatary correctly on a photo sheet. The conclusions of Efraim Zuroff are obviously false. Laszlo Csatary was an innocent man. This entry about Mr. Csatary should be removed. It is untrue and suppressing the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk • contribs) 21:45, April 1, 2016‎

The article already states that the 1941 accusation was dropped for the reasons you give, but that some corroboration was found for other charges. Since you claim to be his son [5] you have a WP:conflict of interest. Meters (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the sources in the article the July 2013 action was a suspension of charges on the grounds that he had already been convicted. That does not seem to support your claim that the charges were dismissed. Can you provide a source for your claim that the RCMP "provided [Laszlo Csatary] with a statement that he was not guilty of any crimes"? I'm not aware that the RCMP ever does that. Meters (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Own Agenda

You are obviously pushing your own agenda here. A criminal reference check covers everything. It is of no use talking to you any further. You refuse to listen to logic and facts. Besides, you are hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)

And you are pushing your own agenda here. Do you have any published reliable sources to back up what you say? -- GB fan 17:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)