Talk:Prague Spring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Prague Spring has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the following regions may able to help:
  • the Czech Republic
  • Slovakia
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1, including talks about splitting the article and the GA pass


Contents

[edit] Expansion

If you're looking for material to expand with, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989)#Prague Spring (1968) has a bunch of incited material. And even better, Kieran Williams' book, and this primary documents reader are both available online (though incomplete). - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know about those, but the problem is that they are incomplete and it would be better to have the book here with me, which I don't. As for the History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) article, there aren't any references there at all. The Dominator (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The plan was to unfold as follows"

The tense in this and the folling sentences throws me off. Is it meant to suggest that this is the plan they wanted but didn't implement, or that this is what actually happened? If the latter it should just be simple past tense, yes? Marskell (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"The plan was to unfold as follows" probably only refers to the sentence: "A debate would occur in response to the Kašpar report on the state of the country, during which conservative members would insist that Dubček present two letters he had received from the Soviets, letters which listed promises he had made at the Čierná nad Tisou talks but had failed to keep." so, yes simple past tense should probably be used. The Dominator (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just to be clear: this debate did in fact occur? Marskell (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The meeting occurred but Dubcek felt something was coming, so they rearranged the schedule to put the Kaspar report at the end of the schedule. The debate never really got started, and the vote of confidence was never called... because the tanks rolled in before they had a chance to do so. So the plotters never got their chance to formally invite soviet intervention, although they'd already done it in secret. This should be clarified in the article... Either I forgot to include it when I added the bit about the plot, or it got deleted along the way. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm really confused :). Maybe we need to pull the wording to talk? Marskell (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please read Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia with my updated info, and see if it makes more sense now. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate that the two paragraphs were deleted as it's probably too much detail for an overview article, but I added the other two paragraphs, about the letter which are sourced and completely fine. The Dominator (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Term Prague Spring

We really need a reference that the Western media coined the term, I couldn't find one after lots of looking, so if one doesn't show up I'm going to delete the info. I plan on taking it to FAC soon and this sort of stands in the way in he otherwise well sourced article. The Dominator (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary I have access to on line has an entry for the term. It would seem from their citations that the term was first suggested, so to speak, in the U.S. magazine Saturday Review of April 13, 1968: "Spring blooms in Prague... Spring in Eastern Europe this year is forcing new shoots of freedom out from still-frozen ideological soil." The first occurrence of the term as we know it, "Prague Spring", is shown as "The eight-month ‘Prague spring’, the Soviet invasion of August 20 and its grim consequences have stirred strong emotions." in Foreign Affairs 47, 1969. Although this is all from an English dictionary and therefore would make no mention of a non-English source, that first bit from Saturday Review looks original to me.

If you need more info to create a reference, let me know. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED only attests first citation in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What we have gathered so far seems to indicate that the term was in fact used originally in English, but we definitely need to do more research before we positively assert any facts. The Dominator (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further review

Responding to a request on my talk page for some pre-FAC comments to spruce it up. Some things I spotted on a new read-thru:

  • More information on the post-invasion diaspora seems to be needed. I wouldn't get overly trivial, but the paragraph on it seems to beg for more than a sentance or two.
  • What occured between the Bratislava Declaration and the later military invasion that made the Soviets actually invade? Were there any "flashpoint" events, or was the invasion entirely unprovoked? Also, the section could perhaps be split into two sections, one on the pre-invasion interventions and one on the actual military invasion...
  • What about more on the Western reaction to the event? You offer only cursory overview of it, and only give the U.S. response. Other major western powers (UK, France, etc.) must have reacted in some specific way, no?

That's some more stuff to work on. Hope this was helpful! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot, any major prose or MoS issues? The thing about the western reactions, this is actually an overview article and further detail is in the daughter article Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, but I do agree that if we include US reactions then other powers should be added. The Dominator (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I'm reading it, and I'm seeing a lot about the invasion and the aftermath and not much about the Spring. I think it should say more about what happened during it and less about the rest. The part about the etymology is not great, either. If the Western media coined it, then it doesn't really stem from the expression "Spring of Nations". The information I came up with (above) suggests that "Prague Spring" is a separate coinage, anyway. I'd rewrite the lead myself, but I hardly know anything about all this. I will copyedit when it seems to be in better shape, if you like. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the lead, as for the term "Prague Spring", I couldn't find any sources at all saying how it was coined so I'm going to remove that piece of information. The Dominator (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm just about done with the lead, I left an overview paragraph, a paragraph on the background and reforms, one on the invasion, one on the aftermath and I've removed the term "Prague Spring" info. Tell me what you think. You can copyedit now, I know, I'm not the greatest writer, but if I was I wouldn't need you! The Dominator (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You saw my note on this page in the section "The Term Prague Spring", right? Is that original research, and that's why you can't use it? I'm doing the lead right now. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, I have not seen your comment there, and I do think it would be acceptable to use that as a source, but definitely not anywhere near the original phrasing that I had in the lead before. I'll try to work it in, although I don't really know where to mention it as the lead is not supposed to give new information. The Dominator (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I've copyedited the whole article. I'm impressed at the NPOV of it, especially considering how emotional a time this was. Good job. I'll try to stay on top of it. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again, I've nominated it for featured article so we should be getting some feedback soon. I don't know how good of a chance it has because I've never really done this before, so it could fail immediately or it could have a good chance of making it, we'll see. There actually weren't many POV troubles, not nearly as many as on Czech Republic for example, but that was more editors adding things like "THIS COUNTRY SUCKS BALLS!!!" or "CZECH REPUBLIC 4EVER! FUCK SLOVAKIA, FUCK HUNGARY, FUCK POLAND", here somebody would occasionally add something that came of as anti-communist but this page has surprisingly not become a main target for vandals and POV-pushers. So, what do you think of this article as a whole? The Dominator (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I don't think there is enough of the history of those months in 1968. I was left wanting more of a timeline, a blow-by-blow of events in the country under the reforms, not just the political machinations. Also, it needs a picture at the top. I remember seeing a pic or vid in the Museum of Communism in Prague that showed the young people in Wenceslas Square face-to-face with the troops trying to reason with them, before things got out of hand. Something like that, maybe, that depicts the forlorn hopefulness of it all. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Czech Wikipedia has a timeline article about that, unfortunately it is completely unsourced therefore unusable to us. I do agree that the 1968 months are lacking and it is most certainly the weakest part of the article. How do you feel about the prose now? The Dominator (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I should absolutely love it, because that's what I came here to make sure was good. (That sentence is a poor example, by the way. It has been said that American English is just German pronounced funny.) Whoever wrote most of it knew what he was doing, so I didn't have to do much. I will look at it again with a fresh eye in a while and tweak anything I don't like. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll see what others say. It was Themightyquill who added the substantial content, god bless him The Dominator (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge back in

Since you're merging that back in, I don't really see why there has to be a separate article for the invasion? I'm pretty sure as much can be written about the reforms as the invasion, but I suppose if more content is added here we can always split it off again, or possibly add it to a related article like Action Programme (1968). The Dominator (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It was split for the very reason I oppose the separate reforms article - because "Prague Spring" specifically refers to the reforms NOT the invasion. Before the split, the article was almost entirely about the invasion, and had little or nothing about the reforms. The "Prague Spring" shouldn't really be categorized as military history, as an invasion, or as an occupation. The two articles cover clearly different topics, and there were a great many details in the invasion article that aren't included in the short summary in this article. I'm sorry I don't agree with your split. I hope you're not proposing this merger to prove a point. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No not to prove a point, just because I believe there is enough content to have an overview and a invasion and reform article, but if not it just creates inconsistency. This article combines elements of an overview article and elements of a daughter/detail article. Right now that's not that big a problem, but as more content is added it'll seems very strange because the way it's structured now implies that it's an overview of all the events of late 60s Czechoslovakia, but then it's got all the details about the reforms. I completely understand what the term "Prague Spring" refers to, I'm just saying that the way it's structured is strange. The best solution: since you oppose another daughter article, I think we should expand this one and once there's enough content break it off, or maybe not. I say we leave it for a while and see where we go with it and judge after we have the content on site. The Dominator (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm sorry if I came off as hostile. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No not at all, after all we are just discussing a Wikipedia article. The Dominator (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] undiscussed split

I've undone the split to Prague Spring reforms.

Firstly, the Prague Spring and the reforms are synonymous. This article should essentially be the first in a series, withe some "overview" elements because the intervention is so connected with the reforms. Second, an overview article already exists in History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) Third, the Prague Spring reforms article was an exact duplicate of this page, and still maintained an overview/summary style, which makes absolutely no sense. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't really judge the article a day after it was created, Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia looked like a duplicate too when it was created. And I do remember you proposing a similar thing. Of course, we can alway split of there is too much content. The Dominator (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? I guess I changed my mind. =) Can I judge an article the day it was created on whether or not it needs to be created? Yes, I think so. Summary style is not meant simply to duplicate large amounts of content. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Work to be Done

So, being bold, let's take a look at exactly what the article needs before we go to FA again. We definitely need way more on the events leading up to the invasion and also a bit more about the situation that followed directly after. Probably a bit more about the Moscow negotiations, some expansion on the reforms themselves, we need to outline the significance of the writers and we need to make it all a bit chronological. I would also like to include a bit about the term "Prague Spring", though I can't find much, do you have any idea how that came into use? We also could use another going over (copyedit), either by Milkbreath again, or maybe somebody with a fresh eye. That sound about right? Are there any major problems that I'm forgetting? The DominatorTalkEdits 05:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all those things are important. Also, reaction within Czechoslovakia could definitely be expanded upon... what was happening inside the country as a result of the reforms had a great deal to do with the decision to invade. Reactions outside are also important. We don't have much on other Warsaw pact countries and their concerns, and nothing at all about Western reactions, whether from Europe or the United states... at least not until after the invasion. I think we should try to think of some better images to include in this article as well, if we can. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literární noviny

I'm unsure as to how this should be capitalised, should it be the original and Czech "Literární noviny" or the more English "Literární Noviny"? I was reading Postwar by Tony Judt and noticed that the book refers to "Literární Noviny". However, Kieran Williams's book uses the original Czech form of capitalisation and furthermore provides a translation "Literary Gazette", any thoughts on which we should use? (not that it's that big of a deal, but still) The DominatorTalkEdits 06:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)