Talk:Prague Spring

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Expansion

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Sorry, just to be clear: this debate did in fact occur? Marskell (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "The plan was to unfold as follows" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Further review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  undiscussed split 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Literární noviny 

message: In fires teferences, the Williams (1997) appears.
What does it mean, Williams (1997) ? It does not send to any site.. dima (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to a book, if you look under "sources", you will find it, it's called Harvard referencing, Williams is the author and 1997 is the publication date of the book. The DominatorTalkEdits 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks I founr it. Is it possible to make the refs extractable with a click, or Harward system does not allow this? dima (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what would you like to link it to? We can add the Google Books link, but it seems unnecessary, all of that information (publisher, date, author etc.) is already stated under "sources". The DominatorTalkEdits 14:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Williams (1997) 

message: Can anybody explain the removal of references?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prague_Spring&diff=239558763&oldid=239488662
dima (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well did you see my edit summary? I find it pointless to include it in the article when an American politician makes a mention of the Prague Spring as a part of his election platform. I also removed the links to copyrighted images, but if you like, you can post them on the talk page and we can possibly revive the "External links" section, I was mostly irritated about the formatting, sorry. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Dominik92, I answer your question: Yes, I see. Now I repeat my question: Why the references were deleted? dima (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion ot references 

message: The references 
"We've seen this movie before, in Prague and Budapest," said John McCain, referring to the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956..."
-- see Michael Dobbs. "'We Are All Georgians'? Not So Fast."
Washington Post, August 17, 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401360$
"Gori is the same as Prague in '68 or Budapest in '56. They are inva
and occupying Georgia just as they have done in the past."
Ben Judah. War of the Words.
The New Republic, Wednesday, August 27, 2008
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1676f847-f5b1-4840-945d-693314a3cb17
Should be recovered because they show the long-term impact of the suppression of the Prague Spring by the Russian soldiers. This is very important analogy, and it explains, why many people does not accept Russian troops in any foreighn country. Without this analogy, the place of Prague Spring in the World's History is not clear. There are many indications that is is not just sporadic opinion; see, for example, 
Picture of demonstration September 1, 2008 is available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/saver_ag/2753126195/ ,  or http://pics.livejournal.com/nik_sud/pic/000e586d
Some surprisingly valid comparsions have been made in the mainstream media between the invasion of Czechoslovakia 40 years ago today by Russia and that country's recent activity in Georgia.
Power Politics and Czechoslovakia.
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2008/08/power-politics-and-czechoslovakia.html
. Thousands authors mention the Prague Spring just in connection with the Russia-Georgia war (2008). It is very significant analogy; as anti-communists, as communists discuss it. dima (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my thoughts are this: I'm not 100% sure, but I think that linking to copyrighted pictures on Flickr and other sites is a copyright violation and against policy. The last link appears to be a blog and I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. The first three seem all right, though I am still having doubts about how notable this comparison really is, I'm sure that plenty of events could and have been compared to the Prague Spring. A passing mention won't hurt since you do have references. I'll add it to the cultural impact section tomorrow when I have more time, or you can if you really want to, I'll clean up the formatting later. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I have added a sentence about it, but note that the first link (The Washington Post article) seems to be out. While you may be right about bloggers, we cannot link to a blog as a reliable source, if you find a reliable source that explicitly states that thousands of bloggers are discussing this, go ahead and add it. If you want to add the pictures, go ahead, but make a separate "External links" section to do it, do not add them as references. The DominatorTalkEdits 06:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recover the references

message: "
Civilians who had protested against the suppression of the Prague Spring are recognized (after 40 years) by Czech politicians and Russian citizens.
No such recognition is reported from the side of the Russian government. Prague and Czechoslovakia are listed among other places where Russian soldiers served their international debt.
 Comparisons have been made between the Prague Spring and the 2008 conflict in Georgia.
"
It was removed by an IP contributor, on the basis of its alleged incoherence. I'm not sure whether I would say it doesn't make sense, but I would say that it's not the most notable thing and is somewhat recentist, so I didn't add it back. I am putting it here on the talk page, if someone wants to add it back, go ahead, I won't revert, but I do have my doubts... The DominatorTalkEdits 23:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Salvaging a Paragraph

message: There was some incorrect information that has been corrected. Mrs. Black was not sent to Prague in 1968 by the US Government, nor was she intended to be an ambassador to a free Czechoslovakia.  Czechoslovakia was independent since 1918, except for periods of Nazi occupation, and it is wrong to talk about the country becoming independent in 1989 or to suggest that Mrs. Black's appointment anticipated the overthrow of Communism that year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.216.118 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Shirley Temple Black corrected 

message: The 3rd paragraph of this section is filled with passive voice.
A few months later, at a party meeting, it was decided that administrative actions against the writers who openly expressed support of reformation would be taken. Since only a small part of the union held these beliefs, the remaining members were relied upon to discipline their colleagues.[5] Control over Literární noviny and several other publishing houses was transferred to the ministry of culture,[5] and even members of the party who later became major reformers—including Dubček—endorsed these moves.[5]
When exactly? Who decided to take action? Who relied upon the remaining members? Who transfered control?
I don't know, or I would be bold and change it. Could someone who does know provide the info and change it to active voice?
Tyrannophobe (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: So this is what facts look like after everyone has a say.  SNAFU.  The people who stood in front of Russian tanks in 1968 could be forgiven for a momentary revulsion about what's become of people free enough to look at books and argue about sources.  Good article?  Hardly.  Miserable politically correct compromise?  Sanitised history brought to you by North American zealots. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  08:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidemocracy 

message: Researching in the web I find this :File:Wenceslas Square 1968.jpg. Is it good? Raoli (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mhh... and other in this category of Wikimedia Commons: Engramma.  Raoli (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An image for U 

message: As 2018 will be the 50th anniversary of the Prague Spring should there be some work on getting at least one relevant page linked to from the Main Page? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  50th anniversary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Prague Spring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817200255/http://soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1968czechoslovakia&Year=1968 to http://soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1968czechoslovakia&Year=1968
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209062623/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDdubcek.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDdubcek.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628080043/http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/ to http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080823004834/http://www.ustrcr.cz/en/august-1968-victims-of-the-occupation to http://www.ustrcr.cz/en/august-1968-victims-of-the-occupation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current image for Alexander Dubček on this page is out of focus and the main subject isn't looking in the camera. Now the only reasonable image on Wikipedia of him is currently on the page for Alexander Dubček himself, but is non-free content. 
There are other images of Dubček on Wikimedia, like the ones below, but all of them are either blurry, out of focus, or with Dubček looking the wrong way.
My question hereby is if anyone could find a better image of Dubček which is under a Fair Use license or otherwise not copyright protected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNk22 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better image of Alexander Dubček 

message: It seems unjustified that so much length is dedicated to the anarchist approach. A way to balance would be to address how other ideologies approach the events and/or diminish the length of the anarchist section. --Greece666 (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist approach to Prague Spring 

message: The introduction is too long. Kapeter77 (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion