Talk:Prague Spring/Archive 1

Role of the West

While the West didn't went into global or limited war over Czechoslovakia they did help in certain way.

After Soviet occupation countries of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc allowed emigrants from Czechoslovakia to get work permit immediatelly and automatically. This was really great help for over 100,000 of emigrants. The border between Czechoslovakia and the West was de-facto open for several months and many people used this opportunity. Those were usually high qualified and active: Czechoslovakia had lost a lot of potential in this brain drain.

Such openess was not seen before and got stopped later. Pavel Vozenilek 08:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help for Hitler

This cannot be written here; it is a lear-cut speculation. Some Soviet idiot could have said that, but it was hardly a serious reason. mikka (t) 01:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From what I read Soviet Union really did offer support in 1938, knowing it is just gesture (and with possible hope of keeping those capitalists one against another longer). Problems of logistics were so severe that even plans of army of Czechoslovakia to move into mountains in Slovakia, to fight from there, has shown impossible.

About keeping defense line: I think worries about /political/ development were far more important than military ones. Pavel Vozenilek 02:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a cabaret joke, I think. Some comedian made a stage reference to the slowness of soviet bureaucracy alleging that the 1968 prague invasion was in fact the realization of a 1938 czech plea that the soviets help them against the nazi german invasion - but it took 30 years for the soviet authorities to process and approve the request... 195.70.32.136 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union army or Warshaw Pact

Just FYI: wast majority of armed forced were Soviet. Hungarians, East Germans and Poles sent some units to border areas, activity of Bulgarians was only symbolical. I could dig the numbers. Pavel Vozenilek 08:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would be so kind, I am sure many would appreciate just that. Especially the numbers, unit names and their assignments from East Germany. Kar98 21:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, troops came from East Germany, but they were Soviet and not East German. Research done 1995 proved that no German troops crossed the border, even though the East German leadership stated something else 1968. - Alureiter 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the objectivity of this article would greatly benefit from some numerical breakdown of force strength. I suspect sources relating to this article may be in short supply but if someone has some information they would be greatly appreciated. JRWalko 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Information about reaction on Finland

Taken from: Eino Jutikkala, Kauko Pirinen: Dějiny Finska (Czech: History of Finland), translation by Lenka Fárová, 2001 ISBN 80-7106-406-8. Original: Suomen historia (Finnish: History of Finland), 1999.

Part Česko-Finské vztahy během 20. století (Czech: Czech-Finnish relations during 20th century) written by Luboš Švec.

Please, use it, when you create a list of sources and the mention about the reaction in Finland will be

Music - 10,000 times

"It has been played over 10,000 times since its creation." - Does this have any verifiability; also, is the number of times a composition has been played really relevant anyway? Krupo 14:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging the socialism with human face

I support merging absolute majority of content, keeping the "human face ..." article with short sentence what it means and link to main article (here). This article should be also splitted to Prague Spring period itself, the occupation and the post-occupation parts to avoid current clutter. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. From what I can find, Dubcek used the phrase for the first time on July 27, 1968, in K otázkam obrodzovacieho procesu v KSČ. We could also include the November student strike slogan/jab at Husak - "socialism with goose-flesh."

As for splitting, are you thinking Prague Spring (reform period), Prague Spring (occupation) and Prague Spring (post-occupation) with Prague Spring as a summary and disambiguation page? Also sounds fine. I'm sure it won't be difficult to fill three pages. Can you think of any sources for more Public Domain photos?-- TheMightyQuill 10:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know origin of the phrase but it became popular in newspapers (sometimes used in satirical context) and freely used in political speeches (always as serious term). Later, during normalisation official documents called it "tzv. Pražské jaro" ("so called Prague Spring").

Husák's joke is just one among thousands - having no other venue to express opinion the students turned to jokes regularly. Such jokes are of no encyclopedical value, IMHO.

Prague Sping denotes (how I understand it) the period until occupation, later it was just rear-guard battle to preserve or conquer positions. I would use Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1968) (just for the event - numbers, timeline of the first week, tanks, planes, resistance, ...) and something as "Suppresion of Prague Spring reforms" or "Aftermath of Prague Spring" or "Change of political course after Prague Spring" or something less clumsy.

I do not know public domain photos. All I have are newspapers from the period and these are not PD. Pavel Vozenilek 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the "swahf" slogan wasn't used until fairly late in the reform period, but I could be wrong. Anyway, plug it in wherever you think it fits best, and we can redirect Socialism with a human face here.

As far as organisation - there's already a Normalization (Czechoslovakia) article, so the aftermath would only need to describe September-April. It might make sense, for now at least, to keep this article, but have a separate article dealing with the invasion in greater detail. This page would describe the spring, give a short summar of the invasion with a main link to Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1968), then continue with details of the aftermath. The article can always be split further if it gets too long, but at present, I don't think the aftermath requires its own article. -- TheMightyQuill 13:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think merging "socialism with a human face" into Prauge Spring section because although it was apart of the Prauge Spring, it was a seperate idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sovietthriller (talk • contribs) 04:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Cunhal

A portuguese wikipedian blanked the true informations that Álvaro Cunhal was the only western Europe secretary-general to suport the soviet 1968 invasion. This isn´t correct, as you can see by the book "A Guerra de África" cronology, by José Freire Antunes, and many other sources. User:Mistico

Anti-Communism category?

I'm not entirely sure that the Prague Spring should be categorised as Anti-Communist. I don't believe that Dubcek, or even majority of the masses were entirely opposed to communism. Any thoughts on this? -- TheMightyQuill 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fullobeans 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Anti-Stalininst would be more appropriate, I should think. Even accounting for some degree of voter fraud, the bulk of Czechoslovakia voted for communism in 1948. The issue, in the ensuing years, was that the communism they voted for was not the communism they got. The Prague Spring, consequently, was an attempted return to the values of 1948, when "communism" was not yet synonymous with "Soviet satellite state". Although the previous century has caused communism to become inexorably associated with the Soviet Union, it's really neither fair nor correct. It was, and is, possible to be pro-communist and anti-Soviet. Nowhere was this more clear than in Eastern Europe during the '60s. Fullobeans 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

References and sources

I do not understand why there is one section for references and one section for sources, and they refer to the same, well with the exception of one, but the rest is all the same. And then one section is incomplete, just a name of the author, and it comes before the second section that is complete, this is very confusing Pernambuco 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

well for a start , I just switch the order of the two sections, so the full section comes first, with the details, then it is more understandable. But if it is possible, I think maybe they should just be merged into one ,and called Notes or called References, like on other wiki-pedia articles Pernambuco 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

the changes that Themightyquill just made, they are perfect, I like it more now Pernambuco 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jagr

-Famous Czech hockey player Jaromír Jágr, who now plays for the New York Rangers wears number 68 because of this important event in Czechoslovak history- Do we have a source on that? Because I remember reading that Jagr himself denied this.--Dominik92 07:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

POV fork?

There is a possible POV fork of this article (or the Occupation section) at Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. See also the related WP:AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. -- Petri Krohn 13:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Article split

Seems the Prague Spring artcle is more about the subsequent occupation that followed rather than the actual Prague Spring itself, so this article needs more material on the reforms included and the material on the occupation should moved to Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia article. Martintg 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems User:Digwuren split it without discussing first, so that it would fit easily into the Template:Soviet occupation s/he created. Although some consultation would have been nice, the idea has been discussed here already. "Prague Spring" generally does refer to the reforms, not the long-term occupation, however, I would think some people might include the invasion as part of the prague spring (that is, as it's ending). There is already an article on the normalization period Normalization (Czechoslovakia), so it doesn't make sense to have an article on Occupation 1968-89. Perhaps an article simply on the invasion would work better, and still fit in Digwuren's template? - TheMightyQuill 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the Czech Republic considers the period from 1968 to 1989 as an occupation [1], it's a good thing we have Wikipedia to teach those silly Czechs their own history. Martintg 06:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the current government may officially consider it an occupation, but that doesn't mean that all czechs do. Nor is the current czech government somehow totally unbiased and therefor the only valid source. Czechs might believe that Jára Cimrman invented the light bulb and that doesn't make it true either. Certainly, there have been American troops in (and a substantial political influence over) Germany ever since 1945, does that make it occupied? Perhaps you should start an article called American Occupation of Germany 1945-Present. Personally, I agree that Czechoslovakia was technically occupied for those 20 years, but your sarcasm isn't particularly appreciated, and the implication of the word "occupation" is that a local government has no control over its foreign or domestic policy, which was simply not the case from 68-89 Czechoslovakia.

Anyway, my point was there's a great deal of overlap between the topics of Normalization (Czechoslovakia) and Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. I would be surprised if there was a whole lot to say about the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia after, say, 1972. Having an article on Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) would be far more useful, and we could definitely included the date that the last soviet tank left the country (something the current occupation article lacks). - TheMightyQuill 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope your kiding.There is not a single person today,who DOES NOT consider it an ocupation.Again,the american civil war has an EXTENSIVE article,even if it ocured in th 19th century and so the number of relevant documents must be lower,but a militairy ocupation of a sovereign nation by armies of 5 nations is made away with a single litle insignificat in the midle of an article about socialist pro people reforms,witch has SOOOOOO much to do with an armed asault ,doesnt it?

My grandfather lost his work at a school cause he said he doesnt agree with the ocupation,now its being patched together with as litle detail and with as many articles as made possible by some perverse logic.DO NOT force me to do the same to the civil war of america article,meaning erasign all relevant details and merging as many articles on the subject as possible into an utter vague mess.Also note,that civil war is in no way more important then the ocupation of my homeland,nor any other,that ENGLISH speaking wikias tend to become AMERICAN HISTORY/CULTURE/MUSIC/LITERATURE wikias,thats a fact and when making articles dealing with those subject in other countries,those are deleted as "faling notablitiy"-witch is decided by a random group of unseen pasers-by editors,who stick it out,whenever they feel like:"Hey,lets delete a non-american article!".I have already LOST all hope in Wikipedia to be a true place of acepting information,because true,in depth aditions that do not deal with ONE SINGLE nation,that considers it the SOLE EXISTENT COUNTRY ON EARTH ,where no other countries exist at all, are deleted because SOME OMNIPOTENT GOD OF WIKIPEDIA probably established some form of "holly comandments" known as "guidelines",witch no one may ever even dare think to alter or trespass.

If this article remains as it is,I will revise some american history articles to cope with the form THIS one has.

I have given up on you,wikipedia,you have become an american culture-representation colony.

New Babylon 2 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ne jsem Američan, but that's really irrelevant. If you disrupt wikipedia to prove a point you'll get yourself in trouble. Yes, the American civil war is a much larger article. People everywhere tend to know more about their own country's national histories than those of other countries. Americans happen to use the internet more than Czechs, and speak English more than Czechs. So why are you surprised that the English Wikipedia has a larger American Civil War article than it does a Prague Spring article?

If you have specific issues with the article, please mention them, rather than ranting. As for your ability to know what every single person alive today thinks... i think that might be POV, or certainly original research. There certainly were soviet sympathizers within Czechoslovakia. Some of them invited the Russians to send in tanks. It seems plausible that some of those people might still be alive today, and might not see it as an occupation. Personally, I would disagree with them, but they might think that anyway. Like I said, that debate is really beside the point. - TheMightyQuill 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Any further thoughts from anyone on a possible split? Does Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) seem like a good idea? Perhaps one article (I can't think of a good title) that covers the Prague Spring reforms, the soviet invasion, and the Normalization period together in one article? That article could have 3 sub-articles on each of those 3 topics. - TheMightyQuill 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here's my suggestion for a split:

• Prague Spring (including the reforms, the lead up to reforms, and small paragraphs on the invasion and normalization linked to the next two articles)
• Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) (explaining the invasion, suppression of the prague spring)
• Normalization period (explaining the aftermath)

Any opposition? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one think it's a good idea.--The Dominator (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article shold not be splitted. There is termin "Prague Spring". Namely Soviet invasion made it famous. You may write separate artocles about Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968), if you want to extend it, but you should not withdraw the historical material from the article. dima (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should split it since it will be easier to make them good articles, maybe we can eventually merge them back together.--The Dominator (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, and created a template to tie them all together. Don't worry Domitory, I left in enough information about the invasion so it's clear that's what made it famous. Hope everyone is okay with this. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this article really still qualify as a "Military History WikiProject" article?--The Dominator (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I removed it, and I see you added it to the invasion article.

Image

Does anybody agree with me that the page should have an image at the beginning? I'm not saying it's all that important but it is the first thing a person sees when they come to this article, something along the lines of what we had before that was deleted because of copyright reasons, I unfortunately don't have access to any of that material.--The Dominator (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Albania didn't participate in the military clampdown

I'd like to point out that Albania, though a member of the Warsaw Pact, didn't participate in the clampdown. Please alter the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.61.206 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that?--The Dominator (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dominik, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_pact#History reads: "After the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Albania protested by formally leaving the Warsaw Pact, although it had stopped supporting the Pact as early as 1961." Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Communist_Albania reads: "Soviet-Albanian relations dipped to new lows after the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 (see Prague Spring), when Albania responded by officially withdrawing from the alliance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.61.206 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a small contradiction, I meant a source outside of wikipedia, if I or you find it, we can include that in this article, but what I've gathered from the two articles you linked, Albania did in fact invade but later withdrew, is that correct?--The Dominator (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Albania didn't invade at all. It withdrew from the Warsaw Pact, not from Czechoslovakia. I don't have any good external sources at hand, but if I find one, I will put it here. All in all, this is not a big issue since Albania was never considered as a major player in the Warsaw Pact. In fact, very few people realize that it was even a member of the pact. If somebody is very interested in the subject of the article, he will read the dissusion secion too thus he will notice my comment :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.61.206 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the article, but without a source, if you find one, please add it to the article or here, it is under the "Intervention" section.--The Dominator (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

I have no idea what to do with them now, the majority seem to reference the invasion, but some just mean the event in general, any suggestions?--The Dominator (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I would say that, rather than a subsection of the "later impact" section, all of the text that is releveant and referenced should be integrated into a larger "impact" section. Clearly, the Prague Spring had a huge impact, moreso than is indicated in that section as it currently exists. Right now, the "cultural references" is just a list, but a more integrated section that indicates the impact across the political spectrum (but especially on the Left) and the different ways that impact was expressed in culture (art, theatre, music, etc.) could be valuable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that was my plan, but I don't know whether to keep it in Prague Spring or transfer it to the newly created Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968).--The Dominator (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave them here in the main article. The invasion is a subsection of this article, but covered in this article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edited a bit, feel free to improve.--The Dominator (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should be left in this article, since the Prague Spring, i.e., the hope for a flowering, if you will, of liberty and freedom is what most of these cultural references are about. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 5, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

I agree that this article qualifies as a Good article and have approved the nomination. I think that the documentation is adequate, the tone is appropriate, and there isn't the expected bad-mouthing of the Soviets that you would expect in an article with POV problems. I would invite future editors to expand the Western reaction and lack of support information, and talk about how the Prague Spring was left to wither by the West.Wuapinmon (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would August 20/1 be appropriate dates (as the start of the PS has passed)? Jackiespeel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate dates for what? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not exactly sure what you mean either? If you're talking about dates for the main page, then it has to be a featured article rather than a good article.--The Dominator (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant as a FP nomination - being the 40th anniversary etc. (Timed library sessions can create "fingers-in-a-twist"-itis). Would six months be sufficient to upgrade the article? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet intervention

I ran into a little trouble copyediting this section. It says, "During the invasion, Soviet tanks, ranging in numbers from 5,000 to 7,000, occupied the streets. They were followed by a large number of Warsaw Pact troops ranging from 200,000 to 600,000." Does this mean that sometimes there were 5,000 tanks and sometimes 7,000, or that we don't know how many there were but estimates range from five to seven thousand? Same goes for troops. It's the word "ranging" that is causing the trouble. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly what you're saying, I assume that it's an estimate therefore the word "ranging" is most likely inappropriate, but 200-600 really seems like a terrible estimate...--The Dominator (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is saddest when it's copied from a badly written source. A quick online search doesn't yield better numbers. Anyone have an actual book handy? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this seems to pose a pretty big problem that I hadn't noticed before, unfortunately where I am access to books is not good (I'm in a small town, not a prison or something), I don't have any books in my own collection that are about the Prague Spring specifically so I really hope someone shows up with a better number.--The Dominator (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I found an article in the Washington Post (via Lexis Nexis) that describes the actual numbers. I inserted a quote into the article. Yall can edit it if you want.Wuapinmon (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, though I think that we should add the numbers and just use the Washington Post article as a source.--The Dominator (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Forestry official

Why is there a {{fact}} on that? I had a source and I'm not sure who moved it.--The Dominator (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the sentence, and I don't doubt the veracity, but there wasn't a reference. You had a ref for him being made chairman of the federal assembly in '89 under Havel. The Alexander Dubček has refs for him being made speaker of the parliament, then ambassador to turkey, before being kicked out of the party in 1970. That's probably more important than his later, non-political work anyway? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you really want a source than a simple google search, the spartacus.schoolnet reference verifies it, and pretty much any book that covers Dubcek will have the forestry official thing in it.--The Dominator (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialism with a human face

Should Socialism with a human face have its own article, or should it be merged into this one? Its contents are currently like a bad version of this article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had its own article. Definitely merge and redirect.--The Dominator (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a vandal attacking me and he has decided that it is in the scope of his project to delete the redirect and restore the article, so it's gonna be tough.--The Dominator (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Invasion

I've merged most of the information from Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia here so it has a better chance of making FA, I'm going to change the Soviet invasion article to a redirect here unless there are any objections.--The Dominator (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, on second thought I'll leave it, it could contain useful detail, just needs to be expanded. The Dominator (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a sec... I just split this article a month ago, and now you've copied almost everything back into the main article? That doesn't make sense. I don't see why it should make any difference as far as a FA vote goes, as long as you cover the specified topic well. Articles are supposed to be written in Summary style, and as you mentioned, it makes way more sense to have more detail in the invasion article. I don't mind putting MORE information about the invasion on this article, but can we trim it down a little, to maintain summary style? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its summary style now, before it was way too short, instead of trimming stuff about the invasion down in this article, I suggest heavily expanding the invasion article and expanding stuff about the reforms in this one, and I realize it was split very recently, but now it's a GA with FA as its goal. I think we should do more expanding rather than trimming, and I was told by an experienced FA reviewer that it is indeed too short even for a parent article. The Dominator (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominator, I appreciate what you're trying to do. But what you need to realize is, the Prague Spring started on January 5th and came into full swing in April. The invasion, which effectively ended the Prague Spring, didn't happen until August.

So from beginning until the invasion talk starts at the beginning of august, we have at least seven months.... and how many paragraphs of content? Three small ones. Or six if you count the introduction, and eight if you included the lead-up to the Prague Spring. Those 7 months, January-July, are what need to be expanded on to get the FA status, because those 8 months are the prague spring. I'm okay with you copying across some more information from the normalization article if you want, but duplicated information is not going to get this article FA status, as long as there are only maybe 100 words on the prague spring itself. As it stands, the Soviet Invasion article has better chances of getting FA status than this one. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize exactly what your saying, I plan on expanding the whole article and the reform part especially, the only reason why I started my expansion with the invasion was because that information was readily available at the invasion article, I don't really have access to much literature on the Prague Spring right now, so what we need to expand is, more background information about Dubcek, Novotny even Brezhnev, more info on Svoboda and how he supported the reforms, more info on the action programme itself, what was the major point of it? what economical suggestions did it make? what social suggestions did it make? what parts of it were actually implemented? Next I'm going to add some info from the normalization. I never intended to expand just the invasion section, it's just what I happened to start expanding first, I completely agree that what needs to be expanded are those seven months you mentioned. The Dominator (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was about marking the anniversary, rather than nominating any particular of the several relevant pages. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, it's pretty far from FA at the moment, it has more info on the invasion than the spring. The Dominator (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)